LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



©lap. 



Tt 



Sqt^ri 



Shelf. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



DESIGNS 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 




IViAR 11 1 



L. B. WILKES, 



jo%iy-^^-^ 



One having believed and having been baptized, 
shall be saved." 

Mark lb : ib. 



LOUISVILLE, KY. : 

GUIDE PRINTING & PUB. CO. 
1895. 



\ 







Copyrighted, 1805. by 
L. B. Wilkes. 



CONTENTS. 



SECTION I. 

PAGE 

Preface 7 

Introduction 11 

CHAPTER I. 
Some Preliminaries • . . .31 

CHAPTER H. 

Baptism is for Remission of Sins 42 

1. Plan of the Discussion. 

1. Meaning of the Terms. 

2. Meaning of the Proposition. 

3. What is not meant by it. 

4. Objections Answered. 

5. Is the Proposition True ? 

MEANING of THE TERMS. 

1. Baptism ? 

2. Sin ? 

3. Remission ? 

2. Meaning of the Proposition 57 

. 3. What is not meant by it 58 

CHAPTER HI. 

4. Objections Considered 63 

John 3: 15, 16, 18, 36. 

(Hi) 



IV CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IV. 

PAGE. 

Baptism is Outward 75, 

CHAPTER V. 
Definition and Mode of Proof 86< 

CHAPTER VI. 
6. Is the Proposition True ? 93. 

CHAPTER VII. 
Leprosy and Sin, and God's Laws Regarding Them. . 97- 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Israel Delivered from Bondage 108- 

CHAPTER IX. 

John's Baptism in 

Letter of Pres't C. L. Loos ... 127 

SECTION II. 

CHAPTER I. 
John 3:5 134. 

CHAPTER IL 

Mark 16: 9-20 145 

Prof. J. W. McGarvey's Commentary 146 

CHAPTER III. 

Mark 16: 16 154. 

Matthew 28: 19 158 

Jesus came to Save 169- 

The Apostles "in Bank" — Acts 2 : 37, 38 . . . . 175, 



CONTENTS. V 

PAGE 

■" On the Name " 180 

£is 181 

What Scholars Say 184 

Acts 22 : 16 195 

CHAPTER IV. 

Romans 6 : 3-7 201 

£ph. 5 : 25-26 209 

Titus 3: 4-5 212 

CHAPTER V. 
I. Peter 3: 18-22 216 

SECTION III. 

CHAPTER I. 

-Ex-President, W. K. Pendleton 224-225 

Barnabas , . 228 

The Pastor of Hermas 229 

Justin Martyr 233 

Irenaeus 236 

Tertullian 237 

Clement of Alexandria 239 

Origen 240 

Cyprian 243 

Neander 244 

Gregory Nazianzen 251 

Easil 252 

Ambrose 253 

Chrysostom 253 

Julian 254 

Wall quotes Austin 254 

Jerome 255 



VI CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER II. 

PAGE 

Some Reflections 257 

CHAPTER III. 

Some Strange Things ; the Conclusion 259 

Jeremiah — Chapter 23 260 

Apostasy ; Theoretic 261 

Apostasy ; Practical 261 

Legalism 369 

The Supernatural . . . , 272 

A New Theory of the Design of Baptism 273 

Eis again 275-277 

Object of this Miscellany 280 



PREFACE. 



There is, in some minds, a prejudice against all 
writings that have about them the least bit of the 
spirit of controversy. In the preparation of the 
pages following it seemed to me to be impossible, 
at some points, to avoid the appearance of this 
evil. 

It is admitted that the spirit of controversy is 
not most favorable to the discovery of truth, yet 
it is quite possible to have the appearance or form 
of the controversialist without possessing the spirit 
thereof. At least, I am conscious that, in the pro- 
duction of every sentence in this book, the work 
was done in an earnest, truth loving, truth seeking 
spirit, and with a prayerful anxiety to advance the 
cause of the great Master. 

There are two enemies to the discovery of truth 
more to be feared than is the spirit of controversy. 
They are, ignorance and error. In any given effort 
to dispel the one or to expel the other the mode 
of procedure may not be the same as in some other 
similar cases. In some cases the soft sweet influ- 
ence of thought and sentiment should come upon 
the heart of the hearer or reader like Aeolus* 

(7) 



8 PREFACE. 

music, or like strains from Orpheus' lyre that are 
said to have aroused the interested attention of 
the dead in Hades. But in other cases, not a few, 
the style of "Jupiter Tonans " or of the actual 
cyclone would well represent the better mode of 
procedure. A wise general adopts the means and 
modes best suited to the case in hand as he sees 
things. So, one who would elicit or propagate 
truth, having of course to first remove ignorance 
and error, will adopt such means and modes of 
reaching his end as, to him, seem best. He may, 
of course, err in his judgment and do what he 
should not, or he may fail to do what he should. 

The investigator should, in the first place, and 
as a matter of first importance, see that his own 
heart 'is right, not in his own eyes simply, but in 
the sight of God also. I have tried to keep this 
idea of primary importance constantly before me. 
How well I have succeeded the reader will decide 
for himself. 

But if it be an evil to write in the spirit of a 
controversialist, as we have said, it is hardly a less 
frequent or a less dangerous one to write in a 
worldly spirit. It requires a brave, honest, sacri- 
ficing man to " agonize for the faith once delivered 
to the saints," but almost any sort of a so-called 
man can, by force of gravity, float with the current 
and try to please the world. This latter class — 
pleasers of men more than servants of God — is 



PREFACE. 9 

the one in which apostasies are. begotten, in which 
"the man of sin " was born and nourished up into 
his present fatal power. So, let the man of con- 
troversy be censured, duly censured, if he must, 
but I fear more, much more, the one who is so 
sweet spirited, so good, that he will controvert 
nothing. 

If such an one should feel obliged, in any case 
to enter a protest against any supposed error, the 
work is done so slowly, sweetly, mildly, so easy- 
going, that, like Caesar's river, in Gaul, it is diffi- 
cult to determine "whether he is going south or 
coming back." The road to truth is not always 
a smooth, flowery one. The traveler along that 
way is frequently compelled to make his way up 
rugged steeps and against painful obstructions. 

The subject now before us is one that has been 
much discussed, and not always, nor even gener- 
ally, in as amiable a spirit as it should have been. 
Indeed, there have been so many controversies, often 
angry ones, on the different phases of baptism, that 
the bare mention of the word raises, in many minds, 
feelings not quite pleasant. On this account I have 
found it difficult or impossible to so construct my 
sentences in some cases, as to feel sure that I was 
safe from the suspicion of being a controversialist, 
and of writing in his spirit. Moreover, I am so 
decidedly opposed to the goody-goody, sweet spir- 
ited way of doing things that I may, unintention- 



TO PREFACE. 

ally or inadvertently, have leaned too far the other 
way. 

As it respects my manner of composition, I 
beg the reader's indulgence. I have written very 
plainly for plain people, that all might understand. 
But in respect to the positions I have taken and 
my reasonings thereon, I invite the most rigid, 
unsparing criticism, consistent with a high, court- 
eous, Christian spirit. 

I send this work forth to the public, fully aware 
of the fact that it will not be, in every respect, 
satisfactory to eveiy body, nor even to any body. 
Indeed, the fact that its positions and reasonings 
are not in harmony with those of all others on the 
subject treated, is one principal reason for my hav- 
ing undertaken the work. Shall I be criticised, 
may be, severely ? If I deserve it, as no doubt I 
do in some instances, I ought to be happy when it 
is well done; only let it be the "wound of a 
friend." If, in other cases, I do not deserve it, I 
shall not be hurt, but benefited rather thereby. 

I have tried, as a brave soldier of Jesus ought, 
to be right, and not wrong in the production of 
these pages, and I pray my good brother who may 
read this book to be like minded with me, that 
God may be glorified in and by both of us. 

L. B. WILKES. 

Stockton, Cal., /an. 6, 1893. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Though there have been many treatises on the 
different phases in which Christian baptism may 
be considered, as its, so called, action or form, its 
subjects, its design, its administrator, its formulary, 
etc. , yet if there has been, in a separate volume, a 
reasonably full and satisfactory effort made to set 
forth the teachings of the Holy Scriptures on the 
design or the designs of baptism, I am not aware 
of the fact. In the following pages I have at- 
tempted such a treatment of the subject as, to 
me, its importance seems to demand. 

The power to reason is thought, by some, to 
be a characteristic of man. It is doubtful whether 
this is so. But, be this true or not, it is certain 
that it can not be said of every one that he habit- 
ually employs this manly endowment. Let us 
hope that a goodly per cent of our readers will 
examine carefully the following pages ; that they 
will, in the light of reason and revelation and in 
the fear of God, see whether these things be so or 
not. 

The design of a thing is the reason of it ; the 
necessity of a thing is the importance of it. To 



1 2 INTRODUCTION. 

live is a design of eating, but eating is important 
(necessary) to living. Now, if a deed, or act, or 
a performance has no design, it is without reason, 
and, may be, against reason. He who requires or 
performs such an act is unreasonable, or he is 
something worse. Of course, Jesus Christ could 
not be the author of an appointment having no 
design. 

When Jesus said: " Go ye, therefore, and make 
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into 
the name of the Father and of the Son and of 
the Holy Spirit," there was, of course, some pur- 
pose or design in being baptized, some end to be 
reached, or some object to be attained. He who 
does not know what that purpose was, and now is, 
is without at least one good reason for doing it. 
But it does not, at all, follow that because one does 
not see the purpose for doing any given thing he 
must, therefore, fail of the blessings of it, on that 
account. Such one will, of course, lack the im- 
pelling force to do the thing required that there is 
in seeing the object of it, which is often a great 
loss. Indeed, it may be and sometimes proves to 
be, fatal. 

One should eat to live, yet if he should eat only 
that he might live, or simply to gratify his appetite, 
though he should still live, yet he would fail of 
the pleasure and blessing that come of acting from 
a higher reason. 



INTRODUCTION. 1 3 

There are several reasons why one should be 
baptized who is a prepared subject for it. I. One 
must, it is said, be baptized that he may be able 
to say he has obeyed the command that re- 
quires it. 2. One must be or may be baptized in 
order to be a member of the church, or that he 
may be in the kingdom of God. 3. One may be 
baptized that he may be in Jesus Christ. 4. One 
may be baptized in order to the remission of 
sins. 

As Jesus did certainly order that certain char- 
acters shall be baptized, of course these charac- 
ters must comply before they can say, truly, that 
they have obeyed this one of God's appointments. 
2. No one is contemplated, in the word of God, 
as being a member of the church until or unless he 
is baptized. 3. Paul says we are baptized into 
Jesus Christ. 4. Peter says, we are baptized * ' for 
remission of sins." When we have reached "re- 
mission of sins," we have obeyed the command, 
*'be baptized," we are in the church, we are "in 
Christ Jesus," Or, when we have been baptized 
we have obeyed this command, we are in the 
church, we are in Christ Jesus, we have remission 
of sins. 

The reader is requested to note carefully and to 
bear in mind constantly that I do not hold, and 
that I do not attempt, in the following pages to 
prove that baptism has any virtue in itself to take 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

away sins. God, only, has power on earth to for- 
give sins. Therefore, when I say : Baptism is for 
remission of sins, I do not mean that it does the 
forgiving, but that God forgives the sinner's sins 
in it ; or, that God has put baptism, as a condition 
precedent, to the remission of sins. 

The taking of food is certainly a condition prece- 
dent to growth and continued Hfe, so that \{ one 
will not eat he shall die. Yet, no one should hold 
that food sustains life except as God is immanent 
in it for that purpose. So, baptism has no force 
or efficacy to remove sins except as it is an ap- 
pointment of God, with God immanent in it. 

If one should put baptism at its Scriptural value 
he would be much more apt to submit to it than 
if he should feel convinced that it is not at all im- 
portant that he should be baptized. Convince 
him that baptism is non-essential, that he is just 
as sure of Heaven without it as with it, and he 
can manufacture excuses for not being baptized, 
or for procrastinating it, with great facility. This 
is true of good, very good, men. Indeed, such 
an one is not far wrong. One certainly need not 
be very particular about a matter if there is out 
little in it. If all men should believe in their 
hearts that if they should die unbaptized they 
would be forever lost, the, so called, mode of 
baptism would be decided correctly in a short time 
by them. 



INTRODUCTION. 1 5 

If one should believe with all the heart that his 
sins were already pardoned he would not be much 
concerned to be baptized. As he looks at the 
matter, his sins are pardoned and he has a clear 
title to a mansion in the skies ; what more can he 
want? 

But, says one, "it is a command of God, and 
one who is saved willy must, wish to obey all the 
commands of God. That is true. But, a com- 
mand with no object or purpose is one without a 
reason ; it is a foolish thing ; and one is not apt 
to have a high opinion of the. need of doing any 
thing when the necessity, which is always a reason 
of doing a thing, does not exist. 

I do not say, for I do not believe, that a person 
must see that baptism is for remission of sins be- 
fore it can be, to him, a valid baptism. God has 
not, in His Bible, said or intimated that when being 
baptized we must, in order to make the transac- 
tion valid, see or believe that we are doing so in 
order to be forgiven. He who is baptized in order 
to remission of sins as his purpose, in the sense 
and with the feeling that he is to get, therefore, 
(or rather therefor,) so much forgiveness, is a legal- 
ist. He can receive nothing of the Lord, unless 
it be condemnation. Such an one, in being bap- 
tized, is not serving the Lord, but self rather. 

But, to know what the blessings that come to 
the obedient are and to feel the mighty drawing, 



1 6 INTRODUCTION. 

impelling force of them in bringing us to, and in 
keeping us in, the service of God, is a very differ- 
ent affair. All the drawing power there is in both 
heaven and hell is laid purposely before us to in- 
duce us to love righteousness and hate iniquity. 
Perhaps the highest reason that one can have for 
obeying any command of God is. that it is God 
who calls for it. If one sees that, in being bap- 
tized he is lovingly and in the exercise of an 
abounding faith, obeying his God, his Savior, but 
does not yet know the blessings in full that shall 
be his ; does not know that the Lord has promised 
to remit his sins, to put him into Jesus Christ and 
make him a member of His church, he has, never- 
theless, rendered obedience of the highest order; 
he has a valid baptism. He would be happier and 
stronger, and in many ways it would be better if 
he had known all the reasons why he should obey 
God in this, one of His appointments, before doing 
so. Still he is rightly baptized if he is conscious 
of but the one purpose in his heart, of obeying 
his Savior in love. 

As pertinent, in this connection, I make a short 
quotation from A. Campbell on baptism, pages 
147, 148: "The gospel system is a system of re- 
demption — a deliverance of its subjects from ig- 
norance, guilt, and bondage. It contemplates a 
new creation — a transformation of man in body, 
soul, and spirit. It is, therefore, a great system 



INTRODUCTION. 1/ 

of physical, moral, and spiritual means and ends. 
Hence, its doctrine, its precepts, and its promises 
are but developments of a remedial system, orig- 
inating in the benevolence of God, guided by His 
wisdom and perfected by His power. 

This scheme of mercy has its parts, and each of 
these parts has its own peculiar object. Faith is 
not a substitute for repentance, hoHness, or right- 
eousness ; but a means to these ends. As a means, 
it is, indeed, indispensable to every one of them. 
Prayer, reading or hearing, and meditation are 
means of Sanctification. But any one of these, 
without the other, would be incomplete and in- 
competent to the end proposed. So of the posi- 
tive institutions of the Christian System. Baptism, 
the Lord's Day, and the Holy Supper are indis- 
pensable provisions of remedial mercy. Not one 
of them can be dispensed with by any one who 
desires the perfection of the Christian State and of 
the Christian Character. Eating, drinking, sleep- 
ing, exercising, though not of the same nor of 
equal importance, are, nevertheless, all essential to 
the preservation and comfortable enjoyment of the 
human system. 

These things premised, we are induced, accord- 
ing to our plan, to institute an inquiry into the 
use of Christian baptism, or, rather, into the design 
of it. It is a conspicuous and prominent part of 
the Christian religion, and is spoken of and alluded 



1 8 INTRODUCTION. 

to more than one hundred times in the New Tes- 
tament. It is worthy of a full examination, and 
of the most respectful consideration and regard. 
It could not occupy so much space in so small a 
volume and yet be considered as a matter of in- 
difference, or of but little importance. We must, 
therefore, regard it with the respect and reverence 
due to a very prominent divine institution. 

But the design of this institution has long been 
thrown into the shade because of the wordy and 
impassioned controversy about what the action is, 
and who may be the proper subjects of it. Now, 
it must be confessed that whatever importance 
there may be in settling these questions, that im- 
portance is wholly to be appreciated by the design 
of the institution. This is the only value of it. 
The question concerning the value of any action 
is incomparably superior to the question, What is 
the act itself ? or to the questions, Who may per- 
form it? or, Upon whom may it be performed? 
We are, therefore, induced to believe that the 
question now before us is the all important — in- 
deed, the transcendent question, in this discussion. 

The appeal, therefore, m.ust be made to the 
proper tribunal. It must be carried up to the 
Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ. What, 
then, do they propose as the design of New Testa- 
ment baptism ? We say New Testament baptism, 
because we have in that book 'The baptism of 



INTRODUCTION. 1 9 

John," and the baptism ordained by Jesus Christ. 
Although not one, nor identical, they may mate- 
rially unfold and illustrate each other. They both 
came from Heaven. They both immersed be- 
lieving and penitent persons and were alike indic- 
ative of divine wisdom and benevolence. 

The Harbinger was sent to prepare a people for 
the Lord. He designed to enlighten and purify 
them. Hence he was both a preacher of faith 
and reformation, and proclaimed ' the baptism of 
repentance for the remission of sins.' It would, 
then, appear from the very annunciation of John's 
baptism, that its design was of a transcendently 
important and interesting character." Thus wrote 
one of the greatest thinkers of this century. 

Though it should be admitted that baptism is for 
remission of sins, the question might still be raised, 
In what sense is this true ? He who understands 
what Sin is, and what it is to remit or pardon it, 
will readily see that in the original or causal sense 
nothing but a person can commit or remit a sin; 
and that no one can, in this original sense, remit 
a given sin except the one against whom the sin 
has been committed. In this original or primary 
sense, baptism is not, of course, for remission of 
sins ; it does not remit sins. 

It is not an interpretation or explanation of a 
Scripture that does not allow that a given Scripture 
is true. It is legitimate to enquire for the sense in 



20 INTRODUCTION. 

which the language is to be taken. But a so-called 
explanation that contradicts the statement itself is. 
vicious, is not allowable. For example, Mark 
says that John preached a baptism of repentance 
for, into or in order to, remission of sins. Any 
pretended explanation of this passage that says or 
signifies tliat John preached a baptism that was 
not for remission of sins, is to be, at once, rejected. 
Ananias said: "Arise and be baptized and wash 
away thy sins." Any explanation that teaches 
that Paul's sins were not to be washed away in his 
baptism is to be rejected at once, because it is not 
an explanation of the passage, but a contradictioit 
of it. Peter says that ** baptism now saves you." 
What should be thought of an attempt to show 
that this passage means that baptism does not 
"save you?" that is, to show that Peter did not 
tell the truth ? But, as before stated, it is entirely 
proper to call in question the statement on the 
charge of wrong translation or to enquire for the 
sense in which the statement is or must be admitted 
to be true. This is our present enquiry. 

In discussing the subject of causality good writ- 
ers have considered the subject under the heads : 
"Original cause, meritorious cause, instrumental 
cause, concurrent cause, final cause," etc. These 
may or may not all be the very best terms to em- 
ploy to express the ideas they are intended to 
convey. Still, almost any one knows that a given 



INTRODUCTION. 21 

thing may be a cause of a result in one sense but 
not in another. To illustrate : An old wealthy 
man sees a person struggling in a swollen stream 
and near to drowning. He is too old and infirm 
to personally render the assistance needed to res- 
cue the man. He offers ;^500 to any one who will 
save the man. A brave young man present seizes 
a boat, and, at the risk of his life, pulls for the 
drowning man, whom he reaches barely in time to 
■save him. The sinking man lays hold upon the 
means of deliverance and is saved. It may be 
said, truly, that the old man saved him, the young 
man saved him, the boat saved him, and that the 
man saved himself. If any one of these factors 
in the deliverance of the man had been lacking he 
would have perished. Each one of these factors, 
then, plays a necessary part in saving the drown- 
ing man, but each one is related to the saving in 
a sense a little different from that of any one of 
the others. 

One may admire, especially, the unselfish inter- 
est manifested by the old man to save the life of 
a stranger. Another is more especially pleased 
with the conduct of the brave, dashing young man 
who, at the peril of his own life, saved the life of 
another. And still another might have his admi- 
ration and enthusiasm aroused more in contem- 
plating the fine buoyant qualities and strength of 
the boat, which, though the water was so very 



22 INTRODUCTION. 

rough and dangerous, out-rode its surging billows 
and brought its precious freight in safety to the 
shore. In giving an account of this matter each 
one of these parties would be likely to emphasize 
that feature of the whole affair that most affected 
him. If I were to say that the old man saved the 
drowning one, I would speak truly. If I should 
say the brave young man saved him, this, too, 
would be true. If I should point to a certain 
beautiful boat and say to a friend, that boat saved 
a man's life, it would be a truth, also. These 
designated persons and things all co-operated and 
concurred in saving the man's Hfe ; but each one 
saved him in a sense a little different from that in 
which any one of the others did, yet it is true 
that eacJi one saved. It would, therefore, be right 
to say of each one of the persons and things men- 
tioned, it was for salvation. The old man was 
'' for salvation ;'' his money was ''for salvation." 
The young man was ''for salvation ; " so were the 
boat, the oars and rowing, etc. 

Does one say that God is under no such neces- 
sity or limitations as we are ; that he is able to 
save directly without the intervention of any per- 
sons or things as conditions thereto ? While it is 
doubtful whether this is true, with all \}i\^ probabil- 
ities against it, still our enquiry is not as to what 
God can do in the matter of saving a soul from 
death, but rather what does he do and what does 



INTRODUCTION. 23 

he require the sinner to do in order to be saved? 
It is certain that he has not revealed to us that he 
saves the sinner without the intervention of condi- 
tions to be compHed with in order to salvation. 

Though it is true, as before stated, that God, 
only, has power on earth to forgive sins, it is also 
true that even He can not save the sinner unless he 
is in a condition ready for salvation. In order to 
this preparation the sinner must, is required to, 
fulfill some conditions, such as God has prescribed. 
This has always, in all dispensations, been the case, 
and shall be to the end. When the sinner is pre- 
pared for salvation, then it is God who proceeds 
directly to remit his sins. These preparatory acts 
and states are not Saviors. They are simply God- 
placed conditions on which He will, as he has 
promised, forgive. God cafi not, be it said with 
reverence, forgive an impenitent, unbelieving sin- 
ner. Such a sinner must die, and God can not 
prevent this result. Faith and repentance are 
co7iditions of the sinner's forgiveness, but they are 
not Saviors. 

He who made the eye, can He not see? He 
who made the ear, can He not hear? He who 
made the heart, can He not understand? In brief, 
does not He who made man know best the condi- 
tions on which it is right and best to place His 
forgiveness? As He only does or can forgive, is 
it not almost intuitively certain that He only, till 



24 INTRODUCTION. 

He shall reveal them, knows or can know the terms 
of the sinner's salvation ? Therefore, our enquiry- 
is not, what can God do or what ought He to do, 
in order to save from sin, but what does He require 
the sinner to do, on compliance with which, He 
will save him. 

In the Scriptures we are said to be saved, or 
justified, etc. , by God, by Jesus, by the spirit, the 
word, the blood of Jesus, by faith, grace, hope, 
baptism, etc. Loyalty to God requires that we be- 
lieve every one of these declarations of Holy Writ 
on the sole ground that it is the word of God. I 
am as much bound to believe that we are saved 
by grace as that we are saved by faith, and I am 
certainly bound to believe both or neither; for 
they both stand on the foundation of the Word 
of God. To deny both is infidelity. To believe 
one and deny the other is infidelity and inconsist- 
ency. This reasoning applies to all the things 
mentioned, by which we are said to be saved, jus- 
tified, forgiven, etc. 

Baptism is, by some persons, said to save as a 
symbol, or in a symbolic sense? I suppose that 
baptism is a symbol or is employed in a symbolic 
sense in the Scriptures. But we have no intima- 
tion in, nor evidence from, the divine teachings 
that it was inie7tded to symbolize the ' * remission of 
sins.'' There is evidence that it was designed to 
symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of 



INTRODUCTION. 2$ 

Jesus and probably our own. See Rom. 6: 4-12; 
I. Cor. 15: 29, 30; and Col. 2: 11-14, etc. 

But I see no reason to suppose that God ever 
intended that it should symbolize the "forgive- 
ness of sins." Of course I know that many mod- 
ern speakers and writers have held that it does 
symbolize remission of sins. But no statement to 
the effect that the Bible teaches this tenet is of 
any force or value unless it be supported by a 
valid reference to the chapter and verse in the 
word of God, which reference I do not remember 
to have seen. 

From the time of Tertullian, 190 to 220 A. D., 
there have been some misguided persons and par- 
ties who attached to the water of baptism a mi- 
raculous power in the saving of the sinner from 
sin. It was, at least early in the third century, 
thought that the Holy Spirit entered into the 
water, and that when one was buried in it, in bap- 
tism, he received remission of sins and the gift of 
the Spirit. It was beUeved to possess talismanic 
or magical power to save, in itself. This absurd 
view was, early, carried to the extreme of hold- 
ing that baptism has the power, in itself, of re- 
moving from one destitute of faith, heart, and 
will in the matter — an infant — the taint of, so 
called, original sin, the power of converting a 
lump of total depravity into a saint or an angel. 
This conclusion grew, largely and logically, out 



26 INTRODUCTION. 

of a misconception as to the lesson of John 3:5. 
All parties, anciently, allowed that baptism was 
for remission of sins. So, when they read, * ^ ^^ 
"except one be born of water and spirit he can 
not enter into the Kingdom of God," they sup- 
posed the passage applied to all persons ; men, 
women, and children, infants, and idiots, etc. They 
supposed that infants were totally depraved and 
were liable to eternal damnation. They said, if 
this original taint is not removed, infants must be 
lost. They knew that baptism was for remission 
of sins, and they supposed that they could baptize 
the infant. But the infant could not believe, and 
even if it could be supposed to be a believer, the 
infant could not' make the confession with the 
mouth. What was to be done? No one, then, 
came to baptism without "confessing with the 
mouth the Lord Jesus." The infants could not 
do this. Well, as an expedient, I suppose, and 
as God had nowhere forbidden it, they determined 
to employ parties, who could talk, to answer the 
solemn question, for the child or infant. So, when 
it was asked : "Do you, A. B., believe with all your 
heart," etc., the sponsor spoke for the infant, say- 
ing: "I do." On this, the infant's confession, 
made by the God Father, it was immersed. The 
reasons for the mfant's baptism, as they regarded 
the matter, were that it might be delivered from 
its sins, from the wrath of God and eternal 



INTRODUCTION. 2/ 

damnation and be made a lively member of the 
church. 

This theory and practice remain to this day with 
some religious parties. In some cases the theory 
is modified somewhat, whereas the practice of in- 
fant baptism is maintained. If those who intro- 
duced this view had seen or understood that God 
could not and did not make a law for infants, to 
which he bound them on pain of condemnation 
here and of damnation hereafter, they would have 
seen that the law of the Kingdom, as it is expressed 
in this verse, was made for those who were capa- 
ble of understanding and of obeying it, and for 
none others. I repeat, this exaggerated, unscript- 
ural view of the value of baptism grew out of the 
supposed evil consequences to infants of not being 
baptized. I refer to this question or subject of 
baptismal regeneration for the purpose, after get- 
ting it fairly before the reader, of saying that I do 
not believe that baptism is for remission of sins in 
such a sense. 

The sense in which baptism is for remission of 
sins is that it is given by him who only has the 
right to speak on the subject, in the charter of our 
blessings and privileges as a condition precedent to 
that end. How that can be; or, whether that 
ought to be ; or, may we not dispense with it and 
still obtain the blessings, are questions which I do 
not attempt to decide nor wish to decide. One 



28 INTRODUCTION. 

altogether loyal to God, in his heart, does not ask 
him, nor does he specially wish to know, whether 
he can not get to heaven without making an open 
confession before men ; or, whether he may not 
be saved without joining the church, asserting that 
the church can not save him ; or, whether he can 
not be saved without being baptized, etc. No, no ; 
such is not the feeling or language of one deeply 
in love with God and His cause. The constant 
cry and aspiration of a loyal, loving heart is, 
''Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" True, 
one may, without sin, enquire into these questions 
if he so desires. But one can not do so to see how 
cheap the terms of salvation may be ; but may do 
so if he wishes, only, to know what it is his duty 
to do. In making this enquiry one should, in 
great faithfulness, scrutinize the contents of his 
consciousness to see if there be the least leaning 
towards the side of wishing to obtain a bargain in 
the search. In other words, he should search to 
see that his soul is clean of every motive for be- 
lieving and doing, other than that such is the will 
of God. 

Be shy of expediencies. For though many ex- 
pedients are right and necessary; though no church 
nor church work can be conducted far without 
adopting some things called expedients, still let 
the sign of danger be placed over that door-way. 
That is the door throug-h which most danger comes 



INTRODUCTION. 29 

to the cause. It is the way of the apostate. When 
the sheep leave the fold and go estray it is nearly 
always by this expediency-road. A few short 
steps taken, not absolutely necessary, prepare the 
way for more and longer ones. Especially should 
the young deal in expedients very sparingly. 

A more solid, steady, grave, and intellectually 
^'serious" love for God, and more careful loyalty 
to the word of God are, now, much needed in all 
directions. 

"To the Law and the testimony," we make our 
appeal. 



Section I. 
BAPTISM; ITS DESIGNS. 



Chapter I. 

SOME PRELIMINARIES. 

Baptism, as I shall speak of it in the following 
pages, is considered from the strictly Christian 
standpoint. I shall not treat at length of the 
Jewish washings, which were bathings of the whole 
body of unclean persons, in water, for ceremonial 
cleansing, and which are sometimes spoken of as 
baptisms. These will, however, be noticed to a 
very limited extent, further, as we proceed. 

It is not my purpose to discuss what is some- 
times termed classic baptism. Classic baptism had 
no design ; that is, no one specific design. It was 
not an ordinance of an institution with a specific 
function in said institution. Classic baptisms were 
merely facts in history. They were sometimes ac- 
cidental, sometimes merely natural events ; some- 
times they were the doings of men, though often, 
they were not. In many cases they were without 
any design ; in some cases their design was one 

(30 



32 baptism; its designs. 

thing, again it was another. In many cases the 
baptism involved, directly, the whole of the object 
baptized; in some cases it reached only a part of 
the object baptized, in which cases the baptized 
part is always mentioned. Nor do I intend to 
treat of John's baptism, except as it was a fore- 
runner of Christian baptism, and, incidentally, 
throws much light on it. It was through John's 
baptism as one of the means that Christ was man- 
ifested to Israel as the Son of God ; and it was 
also, "for remission of sins. " Though I shall re- 
fer to these things and discuss some features of 
them to a limited extent, the design of Christian 
baptism is my special theme. 

It is a fact that Christ instituted the Christian 
religion, that it, looked at as a whole, has a Gos- 
pel which Jesus required, and now requires, his 
disciples to preach, and connected with which as 
parts of a whole are baptism, etc. 

Baptism was, no doubt, put. into the remedial 
system for a reason or reasons. Indeed, it has, 
plainly taught in the Bible, two designs, one as a 
mere ordinance, or as a condition in order to a 
specified end. In this case it is for remission of 
sins. Besides this it has a design as a symbol. 
As a symbol it does and it was intended to declare 
a burial and a resurrection. As a mere ordinance 
or condition, any other outward and formal thing 
would have served the purpose as well as the thing 



SOME PRELIMINARIES. 33 

selected. As a teaching or declaratory symbol, 
nothing else than baptism would have been so 
efficient. 

It is in the nature of things necessary that, in 
uniting with any institution or organization, con- 
viction that it is right, necessary, duty, or desira- 
ble, for some reason, or on some account, to do 
so, is required. It is not possible for the union 
to take place without it ; nor can any one step or 
more be made in the direction of such union until 
it is a fact. Then this conviction must go to the 
heart and effect repentance, or a resolution to change. 
After both these, and in addition to them, there 
must be some overt, formal act, of accepting or 
embracing the thing proposed. This is seen in the 
case of marriage, naturalization, Odd Fellowship, 
Masonry — everything. All this grows out of the 
nature or necessity of things ; or, which is the same 
thing, it is of the nature of God and man that it 
must be so. 

In constructing the Christian System, therefore, 
it must needs have been that the sinner should be 
required to beHeve and repent ; and then, as he 
takes upon himself new relations and obligations, 
he must have some formal way of doing it. There 
must be a turning act. It may be of any form 
agreeable to the law-giver in the case ; or, looked 
at as merely a condition or turning ordinance, it 



34 baptism; its designs. 

need have no particular form. Any one public or 
overt act is as good as any other. 

On the Pentecost the order was, ''Repent and 
be baptized," and remission of sins followed. 

In the next chapter, by the same speaker, 
guided by the same spirit of truth, the order of 
events is, "Repent and turn," in which case turn, 
or the act of turning is clearly the act of being 
baptized. Baptism is the turning act, required by 
the Lord, of the sinner, in renouncing the service 
of the wicked one and espousing the cause of 
Jesus Christ. Faith and repentance prepare the 
sinner for the turning act. There can be no such 
thing as the turning contemplated in becoming a 
Christian without these two qualifications prece- 
dent to any attempt or pretense at turning. 

The Bible says of those who believe and are 
baptized, they shall be saved, or their sins shall be 
pardoned. It also says, of those who have be- 
lieved, that if they shall "repent and be baptized" 
their sins shall be remitted. Baptism is, then, an 
ordinance for remission of sins. This is one of its 
designs. Of course it is not ourselves nor the ordi- 
nance that does the remitting. God does this, but 
He does it on His own terms. Now, that we 
might know that He has done it, and when He did 
it, He has said that if we should, being already 
qualified in head and heart, be baptized or turn to 
God, He would forgive us. We see, then, that 



SOME PRELIMINARIES. 35 

in the nature of the case, and as shown in many 
plain passages of scripture, baptism is for remis- 
sion of sins. 

But, God meant to do and did do more, in des- 
ignating a turning ordinance or act, than simply 
to assure the sinner of the condition and thus of 
the fact of his forgiveness. He meant to do more 
through this ceremony of espousiug the sinner to 
Christ than merely to announce that the ordinance 
is for remission of sins. 

God made it a teaching ordinance, a symbol of 
the prime facts of the gospel. Paul says that the 
gospel, as it respects its elements of power to turn 
men, is, "How that Christ died for our sins, ac- 
cording to the scriptures, and that he was buried, 
and that he rose again the third day, according to 
the scriptures." These are naturally and script- 
urally, elements of the greatest power for moral 
and spiritual turning that it is possible for the 
mind to conceive. The ordinances of the Christian 
System — the Lord's Day, the Lord's Supper, and 
the Lord's Baptism — gather about these potential 
facts of the gospel as bees do about their queen, 
or as the true heart does about its real idol. 
The Lord's Day, or first day, says, Resurrection. 
Its history, taken in connection with the event it 
celebrates, is a power in establishing the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ. He who does, in any way, 
interfere with the testifying of this witness that it 



36 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

shall not bear its testimony to Christ's resurrection 
is no friend of God or man. 

The Lord's Supper speaks, and has been speak- 
ing, for eighteen hundred years, saying: *'He 
died for our sins." What a power to soften a 
heart, to turn a rebellious spirit to God there is 
in the, believed, announcement that " Christ died 
for our sins." 

That we may see the direct testimony to our 
Savior and to the potential facts in his life and 
death borne by baptism, I invite attention to 
I. John 5 : 5-10: 

''And who is he that overcometh the world, 
but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
God? This is he that came by water and blood, 
eve7i Jesus Christ ; not with the water only, but 
with the water and with the blood. And it is the 
Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is 
the truth. For there are three who bear witness, 
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood : and the 
three agree in one. If we receive the witness of 
men, the witness of God is greater: for the wit- 
ness of God is this, that he hath borne witness 
concerning his Son. He that believeth on the 
Son of God hath the witness in him : he that be- 
lieveth not God hath made him a liar ; because he 
hath not believed in the witness that God hath 
borne concerning his Son." 

The fact or truth testified to is herein seen to 



SOME PRELIMINARIES. 3/ 

be: Jesus is the Son of God. To establish this 
proposition, there are three that bear witness, 
"the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and 
the three agree in one." Herein we see the thing 
to be proved, and these are the witnesses which 
John brings forward. These witnesses, I suppose, 
are the truth, or the Bible, for, * ' the Spirit is the 
truth ; " baptism, for water is present nowhere else 
than in baptism ; and the Lord's Supper, for it is 
said, "This is my body;" "This is my blood." 
The apostle does not say that these witnesses did 
testify at some past time and stop, but he says 
they are now testifying. That baptism did and 
was meant to testify to the Sonship of Jesus, is 
further shown by the fact that John the Baptist's 
baptizing was for the purpose, one leading pur- 
pose, of manifesting Christ to Israel as the Son 
of God. "I have also seen, and have borne 
witness that this is the Son of God." 

"On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto 
him, and saith. Behold, the Lamb of God, which 
taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of 
whom I said. After me cometh a man which is 
become before me : for he was before me. And 
I knew him not; but that he should be made 
manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing 
wuth water. And John bare witness, saying, I 
have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out 
of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew 



38 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

him not; but he that sent me to baptize with 
water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou 
shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon 
him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy- 
Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness 
that this is the Son of God." 

This is the institution in which Jesus was recog- 
nized as the Son of God by his and our Father, 
who is in Heaven. It is here we meet with the 
spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba — Father. 

What does baptism say on the question of Jesus' 
Sonship, and how does it say it? Paul says: 
''Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by the 
resurrection from the dead." That is, the resur- 
rection proved, established the Sonship. So, if 
baptism testifies to the fact of the resurrection, 
which it does, it, then, testifies to the Sonship of 
Jesus. 

Baptism is a symbol, not a sign. A sign is 
never like the thing signified. A symbol is al- 
ways, in some marked respect, a resemblance of 
the thing symbolized. A small human track seen 
in the sand is a sign that a child has been there; 
a cloud is a sign of rain; certain features are a sign 
of a knave. But the track is not like the child; 
the cloud is not like the rain ; the features are not 
like the knave. 

The lion is a symbol of strength ; so, if a man 
should have great power among men we say he is 



SOME PRELIMINARIES. 39 

a lion. Jesus was called a lion because, in respect 
to strength, he is like a lion. In respect to meek- 
ness, he is called, symbolically, a lamb. The ever- 
green is a symbol of eternal life, because it does 
not seem to die. 

Baptism is not put into the scheme of salvation 
as a sign of anything ; but in it we **were buried," 
and in it we were raised up, like Jesus was, or in 
a likeness to his resurrection. Rom. 6: 4-5. We 
are also said to be ''united together in the like- 
ness of his death," in our baptism. In it we 
enact a burial and a resurrection. It, then, clearly 
symbolizes the burial and resurrection of Jesus, 
and was meant to do so. Now, as it is seen that 
God designed to have, in the monumental ordi- 
nance that should be the formal acceptance of the 
gospel, a striking symbol of two out of three of 
the chapters of the gospel, it is plain that a burial 
in water and a resurrection out of it was the thing 
to select, and that nothing else would have been 
so appropriate. Hence, baptism testifies, in re- 
gard to the Sonship of Jesus, a burial and a res- 
WTectio7i. This, as a symbol, is its language, its 
testimony, Paul says, in effect, that, in demon- 
strating the resurrection, the Sonship is shown or 
declared. The apostle John says it testifies to the 
Sonship of Jesus, and John the Baptist testifies 
that by or through it Jesus was manifested to 
Israel as the Son of God ; and I. John 5 : 5 says 



40 baptism; its designs. 

the belief of this truth, most gracious and grand, 
is the victory over the world. 

Baptism is, then, an important witness to the 
most important proposition in the world. The 
interests involved in the proposition — ^Jesus is the 
Son of God — are no less than eternal life and death. 
This witness ought certainly to be allowed to tes- 
tify unembarrassed and untampered with. It, cer- 
tainly, ought not to have its tongue taken out, so 
that it can not talk. When it is seen, and wher- 
ever it is seen, it ought to be seen as a witness 
on the stand testifying the burial and resurrection 
of Jesus, and by implication, announcing our death. 
In baptism, the things symbohzed are burial and 
resurrection. The power of the symbol as a wit- 
ness, and the ground of its having been selected 
as such, are in its adaptedness to set forth these 
two gospel chapters. Take away the form, or the 
exhibition of a burial and a resurrection, from a 
baptism, if that could be, and the life is gone from 
the symbol and it speaks no word for Jesus any- 
more. I have thus, as a preHminary to the main 
theme, said, if I have not shown, that this ordi- 
nance has two designs; in the first place, "it is 
for remission of sins;" in the second place, "it 
symbolizes the burial and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, and, by implication, it announces that he 
died for our sins." 

It is said in some of our papers which advocate 



SOME PRELIMINARIES. 4 1 

certain tenets of religion, and also in some of the 
symbols of faith, that " baptism is an outward sign 
of an inward grace;" or that it is a "Sign and 
Seal " of something. But baptism is not a Sign 
or Seal of anything, except as it is set down in 
the scriptures, or as it is fixed upon by Divine 
authority as an evidence or proof that the Sign — 
baptism — being present and seen, the thing signi- 
fied — remission of sins — may be inferred. Signs 
are conventional agreements or natural suggestions 
to the effect that, when employed, certain things 
may be inferred. Or, signs are, sometimes author- 
itative statements, such that, when the thing, des- 
ignated as a sign, is seen, the thing designated as 
signified, must, on the authority of the appointor, 
be inferred. So, baptism is, in a sense, a sign 
that one's sins are, have been, or shall be remit- 
ted, if Divine authority has so appointed, but not 
otherwise. So, admitting that baptism may be a 
sign of remission of sins, the question whether it 
is a condition of remission, is an open one. What 
its precise relation to the remission of sins is, is a 
point that must still be determined by the Word 
of God. To do this is our purpose in the follow- 
ing pages. 



Chapter II. 

BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 

The plan proposed for the investigation of this 
question is the following: 

1. The meaning of the terms. 

2. The meaning of the proposition. 

3. What is not meant by it. 

4. Some objections to it answered. 

5. Is the proposition true; that is, is the subject 
so related to the predicate that the latter must be 
affirmed of the former and not denied. 

I. MeaJting of the terms. 

(a). The first term in the proposition is the word 
Baptism. This is the name of a duty enjoined in 
the New Testament by Jesus Christ by the em- 
ployment of the word which names it. When 
Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize, what did 
he intend them to do? The word which he em- 
ployed is baptizo in some of its forms. 

When the Savior said: "Go, teach all nations, 
baptizing them," etc., that is, when he instituted 
the ordinance called ''Christian Baptism," he had 
before him a number of words, any one of which 

he might have selected, and a certain one of which 

(42) 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 43 

he would have selected in the use of which to des- 
ignate the thing he wished them to do according 
as he meant them to do one or another thing. 
The word mpto was before him, which is used 
seventeen times in the New Testament. It is, 
properly, rendered wash in the common version, 
in every case, as the hands or feet, etc. It is never 
employed to designate baptism. Louo is found six 
times, employed by the Holy Spirit, but never in 
reference to baptism. It is translated wash in 
every case, and is applied particularly to the wash- 
ing of the body. 

Raino or Rantizo is used four times in the New 
Testament, and is rendered, properly, sprinkle in 
each case. It is never applied to baptism. Cheo 
does not occur, alone, in the New Testament. It 
is found with the prepositions, kata, twice; epiy 
once; and ek, eighteen times. It is never used 
in connection with the ordinance. It signifies 
to pour. If, in enjoining the duty of baptism, 
He had intended any one of the things above 
named to be done, he would have employed the 
word for it. Or, as he did not, in any case, use 
any one of the foregoing words in connection with 
the ordinance of baptism, it would seem that he 
did not intend any one of the things signified by 
any one of these words to be done in the matter 
of being baptized. If this conclusion be not cor- 
rect, I see not why it is not. 



44 baptism; its designs. 

Brecho occurs seven times, and, in the common 
version, is rendered to rain five times, and to wash 
twice. It means to ''zvct^ moisten, water,'' etc. 
If Jesus had desired any such thing to be done as 
is seen in the definitions of this word, this would 
have been the word to use. It is never appHed 
to the ordinance. If brecho had been selected as 
the word to point out the duty of being baptized, 
it seems to me we would have been allowed to 
choose for ourselves any one of very many modes. 
This would have been liberal and agreeable to the 
tastes of sin-loving people. But, as before said, 
this word was not selected. 

*'Go, teach all nations, baptizing them," is the 
language of Jesus, "Repent and be baptized," 
is the language of Peter. In the former quotation 
the apostles are commanded to do something called 
"baptizing them." In the latter, others than the 
apostles are commanded to suffer or submit to 
something called baptism. Now, what is that 
thing which the apostles were to do and certain 
others were to have done? Evidently the Savior 
and Peter expected those whom they addressed to 
understand them. This, however, they could not 
have done unless the words they used had a cur- 
rent meaning at the time, and were employed by 
them in that current sense. This is so obviously 
correct, that, to demonstrate, illustrate, or elabor- 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 45 

ate it, is wholly unnecessary. It is conceded by 
all intelligent, thinking men. 

It is, then, assumed as undeniable that the word 
baptizo had, in the lips of Jesus and the apostles, 
a current and well understood meaning. It is 
further assumed as a proposition not to be ques- 
tioned, that, in giving a revelation to man for the 
salvation of his soul, the Lord did actually employ 
the word baptizo in its usual current signification, 
unless he gave notice of a different sense. And 
since it is a fact that there is no intimation in the 
scriptures of a sense being given to the word dif- 
ferent from the usual one, it was, beyond doubt, 
so used. We are left, then, with a necessity upon 
us of understanding this word, as all other words 
in the scriptures, in its ordinary sense. What, 
then, was the current meaning of this word, the 
first term in our proposition, at the time the Savior 
and the apostles employed it? This we must learn 
from its history. We may gain a knowledge of 
•the history of it by actually examining the history 
for ourselves, or we may enquire of those who have 
made the examination. The result of the enquiry 
or examination is that all scholars, ciitics, lexicog- 
raphers, commentators, and church historians, a7'e 
agreed as to this; all, I mean, who are authority, 
and who have spoken on the subject, that it signi- 
fies to immerse. Dark shadows and harassing 
doubts, which will gather and thicken as we near 



46 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS, 

the judgment, hang over and about every other 
practice for baptism than immersion. 

There is a bHssful certainty in this. I cite the 
testimony of only a few impartial, distinguished 
scholars as witnesses in this case, since it is not 
my purpose to discuss the topic to any consider- 
able length. 

Moses Stuart says : * ' Bapto and baptizo mean 
to dipy plunge, or immerge into anything liquid. 
All lexicographers and critics of any note are 
agreed in this." When stich a man as Mr. Stuart 
was, who practiced sprinkling or pouring for bap- 
tism, gives such testimony as herein, it about set- 
tles the question. In it, as he says, we have the 
testimony of all lexicographers and critics. Again, 
Mr. Stuart says: ''But enough. 'It is,' says 
Augusti (Denkw. VII., p. 216), 'a thing made 
out, viz. , the ancient practice of immersion. So, 
indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly in- 
vestigated this subject conclude. I know of no 
usage of ancient times which seems more clearly 
made out. I can not see how it is possible for 
any candid man, who examines the subject, to 
deny this.' " 

Prof Charles Anthon, of Columbia College, N. 
Y. , says: "The primary meaning of the word, 
(' baptizo ') is to dip or immerse, and its secondary 
meaning, if ever it had any, all refer, in some way 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 4/ 

or other, to the same leading idea. Sprinkling, 
etc., are entirely out of the question. 

"Charles Anthon. " 

(Signed) March 27, 1843. 

When Charles Anthon made that statement to 
us we received the same thing in it as if the name 
of every scholar and critic in America had been 
subscribed to it. 

Prof E. A. Saphocle's lexicon of the Greek 
language, current from 146 years before Christ to 
II 00 years after Christ, says: Baptize, to dip, to 
immerse, to sink. Of Baptismos, he says : A plung- 
ing, im^nersion. Bapto, to dip. 2. To dye. 3. To 
baptize. 4. To plunge a knife. The idea of any- 
thing but immersion as a meaning of the term bap- 
tize is wholly absent from the lexicon of this dis- 
tinguished Greek author. 

Dr. Philip Schaff, lately called to the chair of 
Church History in Union Theological Seminary, 
and late chairman of the American Committee on 
the New Version of the Scriptures, says : * * On 
strictly exegetical and historical grounds baptism 
must be immersion. Without prejudice no other 
interpretation would have been given to Bible bap- 
tism. It is the most natural interpretation, and 
such we must always give. Immersion is natural 
and historical ; sprinkling is artificial and an ex- 
pedient for convenience sake. All the symbol- 
ism of the text, Rom. 6: 3-4, and everywhere in 



48 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

the Bible demands the going under water and 
coming up out of it to newness of life. Sprink- 
ling has no suggestion of burial to sin and resur- 
rection to holiness. In order to be true to its 
original meaning and its vital relation to redemp- 
tion through Jesus Christ, baptism must be im- 
mersion. 

Why do you wish to get rid of it? Eminent 
theologians have wasted their learning attempting 
to defend infant sprinkling. Imposition is not ex- 
position. All the early defenders of Christianity 
taught that nothing but immersion was baptism, 
and all the Greek or Oriental churches continue to 
immerse to this day." 

Dean Stanley, of the English Church, says : 
"What, then, was baptism in the apostolic age? 
In that early age the scene of the transaction was 
either some deep wayside spring or well, as for 
the Ethiopian, or some rushing river, as the Jor- 
dan, or some vast reservoir, as at Jericho or Jeru- 
salem, whither, as in the baths of Caracalla at 
Rome, the whole population resorted for swim- 
ming or washing. The water in those Eastern 
regions, so doubly significant of all that was pure 
and refreshing, closed over the heads of the con- 
verts, and they rose into the light of heaven, new 
and altered beings." "For the first thirteen cen- 
turies the almost universal practice of baptism was 
that which we read in the New Testament, and 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 49 

which is the very meaning of the word * baptize ' 
— that those who were baptized were plunged, 
submerged, immersed into the water." — C. Q. Re- 
view y Dr. E. W. Herndon, Jan., 1886. 

Lyman Coleman says: ''The baptism of John 
was by immersion. " — Ancient Christianity Exempli- 
fied, p. 365. 

Mosheim, in his Church History, says: "In this 
century (the first) baptism was administered in 
convenient places without the public assemblies, 
and by immersing the candidates wholly in water. " 
As to the baptisms of the second century, he says: 
''The candidates for it were immersed wholly in 
water," etc. 

Neander, Vol. I., p. 310, says: "In respect to 
the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the 
original institution and the original import of the 
symbol, performed by immersion," etc. 

To these, add the testimony of nearly every 
scholar who has spoken on this question, in every 
century since Jesus said, "Go, teach all the na- 
tions, baptizing them," which all is to the same 
effect, and the conclusion is, the first term — bap- 
tism — of our subject is immersion. 

These specific citations from witnesses certainly 
not prejudiced in favor of immersion (and the 
number might be increased by hundreds) are suffi- 
cient for my present purpose. 

(h) Sin is the term which comes before us next, 



50 baptism; its designs. 

in logical order. What is its meaning? I. John 
3: 4, says: "Sin is the transgression of law," 
or, sin is lawlessness. And again, I. John 5 : 17: 
"All unrighteousness is sin." These two state- 
ments furnish us an exhaustive definition of sin. 
Whatever is either of these is sin ; whatever is 
neither of these is not sin. Of course, no one not 
responsible for a knowledge of law and obedience 
to it, can be a sinner. 

Now, though the foregoing, as a mere definition 
of sin, must be allowed to be perfect, yet, he who 
knows no more than simply to repeat the words 
of the definition, knows but little of sin. 

Sin is to be really learned from its history, as 
a tree is to be known by its fruit. Go to the 
whiskey saloon just after a murderous fight among 
the insane ones who gather, daily, at such places 
to curse God and their own souls. See the dead 
lying around ; listen to the groans of the dying 
and to the shrieks and wails of widows and poor, 
ragged, fatherless children, and learn what sin is. 
The veil might be lifted from many a sadder, aw- 
fuler scene than this even, where countless millions 
are literally cursing the day that gave them birth, 
and this everywhere, every day, and every hour 
of this weary, weary life, and yet the half not be 
told. 

No attempt of tongue or pen of mortal man can 
make sin appear as sinful as it is. The coming 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 5 1 

preacher of this generation is not the yowig^ deli- 
cate, handsome, drawing mistake that an ungodly, 
unregenerate membership too often looks for, 
longs for, yearns for, and is almost insanely bent 
on having, but he is the one who knows and dares 
to stand up before the sinner and reason of right- 
eousness, temperance, and the judgment to come, 
so that the sinner is made to tremble, and is made 
to cry out: "Lord, what wilt thou have me to 
do ? " What the world that is under the power 
of the wicked one needs in the matter of preach- 
ers is not such as shall please the world, so much 
as such as shall be able to speak of sin, righteous- 
ness and the judgment according to the will of 
God. 

The word sin is not used herein in its strict 
sense, as above defined. It is employed to desig- 
nate, not what sin is so much as what its effects 
are, or what its consequences must be upon the 
soul that sins. Thus, the soul that sins is guilty 
and is liable to be punished. I employ the word 
sin then to signify, not what sin, strictly speaking, 
is, but to signify a state o{ guilt, and consequent 
liability to pu?iisJnne7it. This brings us to the con- 
sideration of another term in our subject — remis- 
sion. 

ic) Remission is a sending away. When God 
remits sin he sends it away so that it troubles the 
sinner no more. God removes the sense of guilt 



52 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

and all fear of punishment, and thus are we said 
to have remission of sins. This act of remitting 
sins has been thought to take place within the soul 
of man; to be a sensible act coming within the 
range of the consciousness of the pardoned one. 
The forgiven one is sometimes supposed to feel the 
act of forgiveness at the moment of its occurrence, 
and to be able, by some means, to recognize it as 
the act of God in forgiving his sins. This is, of 
course, a very erroneous, foolish notion, wholly 
destitute of any support from reason or revelation. 
The act of pardon is an executive one. It takes 
place in heaven, not in us ; in the mind of God,, 
not in our hearts. God only, in the first instance, 
can know that the act of pardon, in any case, has 
taken place, just as the executive of a State is the 
first, and, till he chooses to declare it, the only 
one who knows that a convict is pardoned. The 
knowledge of the fact of pardon in the case of 
one who sins against his God, and of one wha 
sins against the law of his country, is in each case 
alike, a matter of faith, not of feeling. This faith 
is, of course, dependent upon testimony. The 
testimony must, in the nature of the case, come 
from God. He might declare to the sinner per- 
sonally, "Thy sins are forgiven thee;" or He 
might ordain a law of life, upon compliance with 
which he would pledge the forgiveness of the sin- 
ner. The sinner being assured of pardon in either 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 53 

way w-ould have simply the word of God upon 
which to lean and trust that all is well. More 
than His word, God could not give us. 

The mode in which God communicates to the 
sinner the knowledge of forgiveness is not to be 
assumed ; it must be proved. The proof must be 
found in the word of God. If it be asserted that 
God speaks directly to each sinner pardoned, and 
declares to him the fact, that must be proved. The 
evidence that it is God who speaks, and that what 
He says is proof of the proposition to be proved, 
must also be clear. But God does not speak di- 
rectly to the sinner, saying in audible language, 
thy sins are forgiven thee. Of course He does not. 
Does God convey to the sinner assurance of His 
pardon by giving to him a ''feehng sense of the 
fact?" Waiving the question of the possibility of 
God's giving the assurance in question, in this way 
for the present, is it true that he does? 

Suppose a sinner is conscious, at a given time, 
of a feeling, either good or bad, may he conclude, 
hence, that his sins are pardoned ? We are con- 
scious of a very great variety of feelings, both 
pleasing and painful, and of an almost infinite 
number of different degrees of the same feeling, 
during our lives. Does God's word declare that 
any one of these feelings, or any degree of any 
one of them is His voice in us proclaiming our sins 
forgiven? Moreover, how could we identify the 



54 baptism; its designs. 

feeling which, at any time, we might have as the 
one which is to be accepted as the proof feehng 
of our proposition ? and how could we distinguish 
it from the other thousands of consciousnesses 
which we daily have? Has God said t4ie proof 
consciousness is one of 2. pleasing character? He, 
in his word, certainly does not say so. But, admit- 
ting that He does, how pleasing must it be before 
it is to be taken as proof? Shall we say that it is 
the most pleasing experience of our life? that 
when such an experience is had it is to be ac- 
cepted as proof, and that we are thereby assured 
that our sins are forgiven ? If this were the crite- 
rion governing in the case, no one could be sure 
that he is pardoned till his life ends. The satis- 
faction of being sure that God has accepted him, 
could never, during Hfe, be his ; for, till death, he 
does not know but that an experience, more joy- 
ous than any previous one, might occur. 

But this theory involves a plain contradiction 
of the word of Goa. The scriptures teach that 
some persons, at least, will not be saved. Whereas, 
according to this hypothesis, all must be saved ; 
for there is not an accountable human being in the 
world and never has been who has not had or will 
not, at some future time, have an experience, the 
happiest of his whole life. 

It is, also, certain that, admitting it to be pos- 
sible to give to the sinner, in his consciousness, 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 55 

proof of his pardon, it would be necessary that he 
should have that particular impression which should 
be to him the proof of his acceptance with God, 
most unmistakably distinguished from all others; 
and this distinction God must make, else there is 
no proof in it. True, if God should work a verit- 
able miracle in attestation, and the sinner could 
know it to be such, of course the proof would be 
satisfactory ; for in that case he would have the 
proof which I have herein demanded. I, then, re- 
peat, this minute and unmistakable description 
of the feeling that must be accepted as proof of 
pardon must be found in the word of God, as I 
suppose the time for a miracle in the case is past. 
No other testimony in the case will do, for no 
other witness than God is competent, no other 
witness is originally cognizant of the fact. But 
there is not a sentence to this effect in the word of 
God. In the absence of this unmistakable descrip- 
tion of the feeling which should be accepted as 
proof of pardon, all that a happy experience proves 
is that the person is happy, happier, or happiest ; 
this, and nothing more. 

Another objection to any state of consciousness 
being taken as the evidence of remission of sins, is 
that we would not, in that case, have any obvious 
or manifest division line drawn between the world 
and the kingdom of God. Clearly, every one who 
says he has the required impression or feeling 



56 baptism; its designs. 

must be accepted. This does not seem to me so 
rational as it would be to have a rule or law of life 
and then infer that one is forgiven who complies 
with the law. Of course I know bad men can, in 
any case, impose upon us. Mark 2: 3-12, says: 
"And they come, bringing unto him a man 
sick of the palsy, borne of four. And when they 
could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they 
uncovered the roof where he was : and when they 
had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon 
the sick of the palsy lay. And Jesus seeing their 
faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy 
sins are forgiven. But there were certain of the 
scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 
Why does this man thus speak ? he blasphemeth : 
who can forgive sins but one, even God? And 
straightway, Jesus perceiving in his spirit that they 
so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them. 
Why reason ye these things in your hearts ? 
Whether is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, 
thy sins are forgiven ; or to say. Arise, and take 
up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know 
that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive 
sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto 
thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy 
house. And he arose, and straightway took up 
the bed, and went forth before them all ; insomuch 
that they were all amazed, and glorified God, say- 
ing, We never saw it on this fashion." 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 5/ 

In this passage not only does Jesus establish 
the fact, in the only way in which it ca7t be donCy 
that he has power on earth to forgive sins, but in- 
cidentally he makes it plain that we may know 
that our sins are remitted by the fact that he says 
so. In this case his work was offered as voucher 
for his word. As this mode of assurance, then, 
was good and satisfactory, so it is now. 

After these definitions and qualifications of the 
terms of the general proposition I am ready to en- 
quire : 

2. What is the meaning of the proposition : "Bap- 
tism is for remission of sinsf I mean by it: 

1. That God has a law for the forgiveness of sins; 

2. That the sinner, who is responsible for compH- 
ance with the law, is not pardoned till he complies : 

3. That baptism is in this law of God. I mean 
to assert that the predicate of the proposition is, 
by the will of God, so related to the subject that 
it must be affirmed of it and not denied. I mean 
that remission of sins is conditioned, in the law of 
God, upon being baptized. 

I mean that, one of the purposes or designs of 
being baptized is, remission of sins. 

But as a definition is exclusive as well as inclus- 
ive ; or, as it is necessary, in order to a clear view 
of a thing defined, to specifically separate or ex- 
clude from it whatever we do not wish to include 
that might otherwise be thought to be included, 



58 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

I proceed to specify some things which I do not 
nnean to include in the proposition. 

What I do not mean by the proposition : * ' Bap- 
tism is for remission of sins." 

(a) I do not mean that there is any natural fit- 
ness in the means to bring to pass the result ; I 
do not mean that water takes away sins, or that 
there is inherent virtue in either the act of being 
baptized, or in the element into which a person is 
baptized, to remove sins. Our salvation is all of 
grace. There is no men't in us, nor in anything 
we can do, on the ground of which we deserve 
or may demand anything at the hand of God. 
Still, this fact is not inconsistent with the fact that 
God bestows his grace upon certain characters 
only, and upon these, only upon such terms as 
he may specify as pleasing to him. 

(d) I do not mean that baptism, l?j/ itself, is of 
any value. A person who has not believed on the 
Lord Jesus Christ with all his heart, and who has 
not repented of his sins, need not, ought not to, 
can not be baptized. Should such an one pass 
through the form, the thing is lacking and the 
form is less or worse than valueless. Without a 
previous conversion of mind and heart and a reso- 
lution so fixed and strong that it pervades the 
whole being, to live Godly in Christ Jesus, no 
mere act of being buried in water, after a given 
formula of words, will do any good. 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 59 

The charge used to be made that the teachings 
of the Christian Church, on the design of baptism, 
involve them in the dogma of water regeneration 
and in some cases its members have been charged 
with holding that baptism alone is sufficient to se- 
cure remission. But, such is not the truth and it 
never was. The fault in this case, or for making 
this misrepresentation has, no doubt, been, in some 
instances, our own. Many of our preachers, and 
perhaps most of them, at times, have been a little 
careless in their efforts to explain what was really 
true, but what, to the mind of good men, greatly 
opposed to the tenet being offered, was understood 
to be quite a difierent matter from what it was. 
The fault finder in this case is, and no doubt was 
at fault for not hearing better. It is probable, 
also, that the speaker was often, may be as often, 
to blame for not considering more carefully and 
fraternally the condition of his hearers. No speaker 
has cleared his skirts till he has done this. Let 
one speak to those who, in what is called religious 
experiences, is in the habit of seeing God, the 
Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ, angels, and even the 
devil, in the rational style of Jesus and his apostles, 
and it is at once as clear to them as a sunbeam 
that you have no religion, that you "deny the 
operation of the Spirit," etc. A half century ago 
this was true of a much larger number of religious 
people, relatively, than it is now, perhaps. But, 



6o baptism; its designs. 

the disposition is strong, even now, to see sights, 
and the number of those who are supposing that 
they see or otherwise experience miraculous mani- 
festations of God in the conversion of their souls 
is by no means small, even in the most cultured 
sections of the country. Man naturally seeks cei'- 
tainty in matters religious, and when his intelligence 
is not sufficient to give him faith in the promises 
of God upon which he can satisfactorily trust, and 
by which, as a Christian, he can in every case 
walk, he will and must resort to visions and 
dreams. The wish to be certain we are right is, 
with truly Christian men, universal and unavoida- 
ble. It is precisely the teaching of God's word on 
that point. 

The error in this case is not in wishing for cer- 
tainty, nor in supposing that the gracious Father 
intends that we shall have it, but it is in not rely- 
ing upon that which is the infaUible proof of the 
fact, and betaking ourselves to silly dreams and 
such like superstitions, for the proof. So far, then, 
as we are fairly responsible for misrepresentations 
concerning us, our fault has been, and probably 
is, about this: Some of us have failed to state, with 
sufficient clearness and fullness, our positions, so 
that even badly informed or badly prejudiced per- 
sons could not avoid understanding us. Also, be- 
yond doubt, we have had, as others, some unsta- 
ble, reckless, really unconverted men in our pulpits, 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 6 1 

who, like Apollos, needed to be taught the way 
of the Lord more perfectly. But the charge of 
teaching or holding the dogma of baptismal regen- 
eration can not, in truth, be brought against us as 
a people, nor against any considerable number of 
us at all. In fact, there is much reason to think 
that, in all such cases, on all sides, there is more 
perversity of spirit than want of information at 
the bottom. There is but little if any reason why 
any moderately well informed person anywhere 
should be ignorant of any one of the leading teach- 
ings of the Church of Christ. 

If they do not know they have ample means of 
knowing just what we do teach. 

(c) I do not mean that no one can be saved ^ in 
heaven, who has not been baptized. I have never 
known anyone, looked upon as being a respecta- 
ble teacher in the church, who so held. I except 
from the proposition infants, those who lived under 
a former dispensation, those who can not, on ac- 
count of sickness, be baptized, those who are on 
islands, in deserts, on crosses, at the North Pole, 
and such like. These all I would exclude from 
the operation of the law of baptism for remission 
of sins, except in so far as they may be responsi- 
ble for their inability to comply. Or, in general, 
I except all those who are unable to be baptized 
and are not responsible for that inability. For 
these, baptism is nothing; or rather, it is not for 



62 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

these, or any of them, at all, neither for remission 
of sins nor for any other purpose. 

God does not legislate for those who, for any 
reason, are not able to obey his laws. He that 
would try to prove that baptism is not for the re- 
mission of the sins of one who can not be baptized 
is a failure as a teacher. God never ordained 
baptism for such an one, for any purpose. He that 
infers from such cases that baptism is not for re- 
mission of sins to the one for whom it was ordained, 
is probably safe enough, whether baptized or not. 



Chapter III. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 



Some very true and thinking persons, men of 
good education and much experience, have filed 
objections to, ** baptism for remission of sins," 
founded upon certain scriptures, which to them 
seem to disprove it. A few samples of these let 
us, now, examine. John 3: 16-18; also, verse 36. 
These scriptures, as read in the common version, 
seem, it is thought, to condition remission upon 
faith only. So, at least, they are understood by 
many. Now, since faith is before the baptism of 
any one can occur, according to the word of God, 
it follows that if one who has faith is then, at the 
first moment of having it, pardoned, baptism is not 
for remission of sins. I shall examine these pas- 
sages in the light of objections, and in this light 
only, for the present. I begin with verse 15, and 
quote from the New Version : ' * that whosoever 
believeth may, in him, have eternal life." The 
idea is the same as if we should read: "whoever 
believes, in him may have eternal life." 

The question in this case is : Does the believing 
put one "in him?" Or, is it that, the "life eter- 
nal," which the one who believes may have, is 

(63) 



64 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

"in him?" If the former view be the true one 
there is some force in the passage, as an objection ; 
if the latter be the true idea, there is none. If 
the former be the correct idea, the sentence should 
read: "whoever believes" into him, "may have 
eternal life;" if the latter, it should read: "who- 
ever believes, in him may have eternal life;" that 
is, it is the one who believes, who, only, may have 
eternal life. Or, express it thus: The one who 
believes may, but no one else can, have life in 
him. I suppose Paul expresses the same idea 
when he says: "He that cometh to God must be- 
Heve, " etc. Or, there is no coming to God, no 
pleasing of God without believing. 

Now, it seems to me that, if one is "in him" 
at the moment he believes, it could not be said 
of him afterwards, "he may have eternal Hfe. " 
It ought not to be said to one who already has eter- 
nal life, that "he may have'' it. It should be, 
"^^^^5," not, '' he may have.'' But in fact Jesus 
said, "he may have," not, "he has." 

Again, if the intention had been to say that be- 
lieving puts one "into him," the Greek should 
have been, "m aiiton," not, as here, ''en auto." 
I suppose Jesus teaches that "eternal life" is in 
him and that the one who believes may — has the 
privilege to — come and have it. This view is, I 
suppose, made certain at John i: 12. "But as 
many as received him, to them gave he the right 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 6$ 

to become children of God, eve7i to them that 
beUeve on his name/' It is seen that to receive 
him and to beheve on his name are equivalent 
in meaning ; so the one who believes to the ex- 
tent or degree of being led into the kingdom of 
God, has the right to become a child of God. Not 
that he is a child of God while he is only a be- 
liever; but having the faith that leads to obedi- 
ence he may have the blessing of ''eternal life.'' 

Read, to the same effect, John 20: 30-31: 
"Many other signs, therefore, did Jesus in the 
presence of his disciples which are not written in 
this book ; but these are written that you may be- 
lieve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and 
that, believing, you may have life in his name." 
It is distinctly taught herein that the believing is 
precedent to the privilege of having the life in his 
name. Or, that believing only prepares one for 
obtaining it. 

Finally, read I. John 5:1: "Whosoever be- 
lieves that Jesus is the Christ is begotton of God." 
This shows the spiritual status of the believer. 
He is begotten, only begotten. His birth has not 
yet taken place ; he is not yet translated into the 
kingdom of God's dear Son, or he is not "in 
him." He is, when he believes "with the heart" 
ready for a birth which is required in order to be 
"in him." 

The phrase, "in him," or, "in Christ," denotes, 



66 baptism; its designs. 

as it were, location within. It denotes some such 
a connection as exists between a vine and its branch. 
One "in Christ" is so joined to him as to draw 
spiritual life from him who, only, has it. Only 
the vine has the life which the branch must have, 
else it can bear no fruit ; it must die. As a cer- 
tain connection between a vine and its branch is 
essential to the life and fruitfulness of the branch, 
so, a certain connection between Christ and a man 
is necessary in order to Christian life and fruitful- 
ness. This connection with Christ is expressed by 
the phrase, "in Christ." Without attempting to 
make this phrase answer, in every minute particu- 
lar, to any certain facts and states, it may, I think, 
be said with all safety, and briefly, that the one 
who believes Jesus in every statement he has made, 
who loves him in every fiber of his being, and 
who walks in all His commandments, up to the 
full measure of what is possible to him, is, I think 
practically, in him. But so far as any one is au- 
thorized to affirm of another man that he is " in 
Christ," his assertion must be based on things as 
he sees them. If God demands faith unfeigned, 
and repentance, and public profession of faith and 
purpose, then, we are not authorized to receive 
and treat one as in Christ who lacks any one of 
these things. And, so far as the one who does 
the receiving is concerned, he must believe that 
he sees in the one to be received these prerequis- 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 6/ 

ites, else he can not receive him, except it be in 
mere pretense, which is not receiving him at all. 
Should he act otherwise, his conduct would be 
that of one who assumes to be a law-giver, not a 
subject of the divine government. It is sometimes 
asserted that one is "in Christ," or may be, who 
has not been baptized. Whatever may, in fact, 
be the end of a life that has been in accord with 
the will of God in everything except in respect to 
being baptized, we^ who are not authorized to 
make, or to change the law, have no right to say 
or to affirm of any one's case what God has not 
said of it. If God has said that one is baptized 
into Christ, it is not a mark of fidelity to the will 
of God in one to say that a person may be in 
Christ, baptized or not. If Jesus has said, "un- 
less one is born of water and spirit he can not 
enter into the kingdom of God," and he has, then, 
no one ought to say that one is or may be in the 
kingdom of God, who is not so born. But I dis- 
miss this point for the present. 

It should be carefully noted that the Bible does 
not say that one believing Jesus, or who believes 
any person or thing, has or shall have life or any 
other thing. Such view is wholly without scripture 
warrant, is against the word of God and is op- 
posed to human philosophy. Believing alone is 
dead, according to both reason and revelation. 
But, does not Jesus say: "he who believes is not 



68 baptism; its designs. 

condemned ? " No, no ; there is no such language, 
in the word of God, as that. Again, did not 
Jesus say, "he that beUeveth the Son has ever- 
lasting life?" No, he did not. It is not of the 
one who believes simply or only that Jesus speaks, 
but of that one who believes, or, of those who be- 
lieve ''inJiirn,''' ''into JwHy'' or "upon him." 

Of the one who only believes, whose faith is. 
simply in the pure intellect, James says, his faith 
"is dead, being alone." Of him who only be- 
lieves, but does really believe, who believes with 
the heart, Jesus says: "He may, in him, have 
eternal life. " God gives us eternal life, but that 
life is in his Son. And so we must be "in him" 
(whatever that may mean), where this life is, be- 
fore we can have it. Believing in the heart pre- 
pares one for entering ''into him.'' One who has 
believed in his heart, and has believed into right- 
eousness, has everlasting life. So, the one of whom 
Jesus says, "he has everlasting life," is the be- 
liever, it is true, but it is only he who has "be- 
lieved into righteousness^'' or has believed to the 
doing of the will of God. 

Believing, then, when and while it is alone, is 
dead. 

When the believing goes to the heart, and when 
the thing believed captures the heart and resigns 
it to the will of God, this one is begotten of God. 
It is now his privilege to come "into him," to 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 6g 

l>e born c'" water, as he has already been begotten 
of the spirit. Finally, when one's faith has been 
perfected by doing the will of God, he is "in 
him," "has eternal life," "is not condemned." 
It is of this last mentioned believer that Jesus says, 
he "has eternal life." The believing was into the 
Son. 

The latter part of the same verse, John 3 : 36, 
confirms this view. It says : * * But he that obeys 
not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of 
God abideth on him. ' ' This, it seems to me, goes 
to show that the "believing into him," which is 
the condition of having everlasting life, mentioned 
in the forepart of the verse, includes obedience to 
him; or, the one who has the everlasting life, 
is the one who has believed and obeyed him. 

Acts, 10-43, is often cited by persons eminent 
for their learning and piety, as proof that one's 
sins are pardoned on believing, simply. If they 
are, of course baptism is not a condition precedent 
thereto. The passage reads as follovvs: "To him 
all the Prophets bear witness that, through his 
name, every one that believes on him (into him, gr.) 
shall receive remission of sins. " I do not admit 
that there is any difficulty, as touching our ques- 
tion at least, in this passage. There are no terms 
in it that in any way allude to the fact or that in 
any way assert, that our sins are forgiven simply 
upon faith. The sense of this scripture is: i. That 



70 baptism; its designs. 

remission of sins is through his name, or by means 
of Jesus Christ; so, that whoever refuses him as a 
savior must fail of salvation. And, 2. That this 
salvation, which is through the name of Jesus 
Christ, is his who believes *'on him." (Into 
him, Gr.) 

It is the case of the one mentioned by Jesus, 
John 3 : 36, who hath everlasting life ; or, it is 
such as Paul alludes to, Heb. 10: 39, where he 
says : ' ' But we are not of them that shrink back 
unto perdition ; but of them that have faith unto 
the saving of the soul.'* 

Again, see John, 12: 42: "Nevertheless even 
of the rulers many believed on him ; but because 
of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they 
should be put out of the synagogue : for they loved 
the glory of men more than the glory of God." 
Here we have it stated that ''many of the rulers 
believed ' on him ; * but because of the Pharisees 
they did not confess it, lest they should be put 
out of the synagogue ; for they loved the glory of 
men more than the glory of God." 

It is a fact that these rulers believed. It will 
not do to say that they did not really believe, that 
they only pretended or claimed to believe, for 
Jesus, who knew what the truth in the case was, 
says they beHeved. His testimony is direct; and 
in terms clear, unequivocal, he asserts that they 
believed. If faith had been the only requisite to 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. J I 

secure for them a place among his disciples, or 
"in him," they were saved, were "in him," were 
his disciples. But, in fact, they were not his dis- 
ciples, they were not in him. The context shows 
this. There is no proof that their faith was intel- 
lectually defective. Nor did their faith lack heart, 
altogether. The presence of " eis auton" (into 
him), following the expression, believed, and mod- 
ifying it, proves that they had heart in believing ; 
but the context shows that they did not have 
enough heart in it else they would have confessed 
him. It is, then, clear that intellectual believing, 
alone, does not secure the blessing ; nor does heart 
faith either, unless there is enough heart in the be- 
lieving to, morally, compel the believer to do the 
duty laid down in the faith. Whenever there is 
enough heart in the believer to morally compel 
the doing of duty, the faith saves, just as do the 
other parts of the requirements prescribed by the 
Lord Jesus, who, only, can save. All this makes 
it certain beyond the possibility of any reasonable 
doubt that believing was not, and that it is not 
the only condition of one's salvation or pardon. 

Intellectual faith is necessary to forgiveness, but 
when and while it is alone it is worth nothing. 
Heart faith comes after this, and is, where it exists, 
an addition to it. But while these are alone they 
are of no value for this life or the next. The 
value of faith of whatever kind or degree, of head 



72 baptism; its designs. 

or heart, or both, is never found ifn itself; it is 
found in the "work of faith," or — which is the 
same thing — in the Hfe ordered according to the 
faith. It is only as, and when, faith brings one 
into the will of God, or leads one to take Jesus' 
yoke upon him, that it is of value, otherwise it is 
of no worth to any soul of man. 

It is held by some that the presence of eis (into) 
following ** to baptize, " does not prove that bap- 
tism takes a person into Christ, or that it is * ' for 
remission of sins." If this be true it would or 
ought to follow that the same preposition follow- 
ing, to believe and having for its object eternal 
life does not prove that faith is the alone condition 
precedent to having eternal life. That is, if, since 
we may believe into Christ, it follows that baptism 
may not be for remission of sins, it is for the same 
reason true, that, since we are baptized into Christ, 
it may follow that faith is not for remission of sins. 
These two statements are equally true. If to be- 
lieve ets anion (into him) proves that faith is the 
alone condition of being "in him," then to be 
baptized "into him" {ets auton) proves that bap- 
tism is the alone condition of being "in Christ." 
While each of these hypotheses is equally true, 
they are both utterly false. 

Matt. 26y 28: "For this is my blood of the 
covenant which is being shed for many unto (eis) 
forgiveness of sins." It is often held, and not in- 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 73 

frequently urged in a spirit and style offensive to 
the taste of the highly cultured in spiritual matters 
that, it is the blood of the Lamb of God that 
cleanses from sin. If it be replied : Yes, of course 
I know that ; what then ? indignation often rises 
high, and the objector replies in much passion and 
ignorance : Why, it follows that baptism has and 
can have nothing to do in the matter of one's for- 
giveness. That is, the objector holds that when 
any one thing is said to be for remission of sins 
nothing else can be for that purpose ; if the blood 
of Jesus is for remission of sins, then baptism can 
not be. The absurdity of the view herein opposed 
is so glaring that one hesitates to make any reply. 
But, as it is hard to find anything so absurd that 
there are not multitudes ready to believe it; and 
as there are like multitudes ready to dispute the 
plainest truths addressed to the human under- 
standing, so it would seem to be needful to give 
line upon line and precept upon precept, in regard 
to even the plainest matters. 

Paul says: **We are saved by hope." Jesus 
shall ''save his people from their sins." "Who- 
soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
be saved." Speaking of his blood, Jesus says: 
"Which is shed * * * for remission of sins." 
This list might be extended much. It is said, 
"Baptism now saves us, or you." Would it be 
a correct rule of interpretation to say : When it is 



74 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

ascertained from the scriptures that any one thing 
is for remission of sins, nothing else is to be al- 
lowed to be for remission of sins? 

The Bible interpreted, throughout, by that rule 
is left so absurd and false that the Koran would be 
a gem in comparison with it. 

But, this point is so entirely plain that it is not 
deemed necessary to enlarge upon it further. 



Chapter IV. 

OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. 

It is sometimes objected against the proposition 
which I am affirming, that baptism is outward, and 
that no outward thing can be ''for remission of 
sins." This objection is, by no means, well con- 
sidered. 

Is it thought, by the objector, that "remission 
of sins" is a great moral change in the feelings or 
sentiments of the heart, and that baptism, being 
outward, can not be a condition of or a necessary 
antecedent to such a state of the heart, and that, 
therefore, it is not for "remission of sins"? Waiv- 
ing controversy as to whether baptism might not 
have much to do with the conditions of the heart 
(the apostle Peter sets baptism in close correspond- 
ence with the conscience when he says that it 
" is the asking of a good conscience after God "), 
it is at least true and enough to say, that remission 
of sins and a great, radical heart change are by 
no means identical things. Such heart change is 
a necessary antecedent to and a condition of re- 
mission of sins. Indeed, one's faith must be, "as 
it were," baptized into a heart full of such changed 
sentiments ere it is a " faith into salvation. " When 

(75) 



'j6 baptism; its designs. 

one's faith is into life he is begotten. Now he has 
God's permission to become a child of God ; or, 
to enter into Christ, to put on Christ, to be born 
into the kingdom of God. 

Remission of sins is not to be inferred, as a fact, 
from any sensible event which may take place on 
or in a person ; it is a rational affair that we grasp 
by faith, founded upon the word of God. It is 
God who remits sins. The time when and the 
conditions upon which he chooses to perform the 
deed are matters which we may not, can not, 
a pinori know. These he determines for himself 
There is no reason why God might not connect 
remission of sins with the act of baptism quite as 
reasonably as with any other act of the creature. 
It is true, as we have said, that baptism has no 
virtue or efficacy, in itself considered, to remove 
sins. It is not at all on this ground that we make 
our affirmation. Does the objector say that faith 
is, as a condition, for remission of sins? Faith has 
no virtue or efficacy, in itself, to remove sins. It 
is the work of the c7ratii7T, as certainly and to the 
extent that baptism is. The sinner merits nothing 
when he believes or because he believes; nor does 
he when or because he is baptized. 

Faith, when considered apart from every other 
thing, is a purely intellectual act or state of a per- 
son. Christian faith, or faith that is into life, is 
this purely intellectual act or state gone to the 



OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. // 

heart, and is there warmed into life. There is yet 
no merit in it. 

Is it held that, when one believes, and especially 
when he beheves ''with the heart" (or in the 
heart) he comes into harmony with the will of God 
in respect to the very highest part of his nature? 
This is quite true. But is not this true of one 
also when he* is scripturally baptized ? Are not 
faith and heart both present when one is baptized 
in accordance with the will of God? Nay, more, 
are they not present in a more intense and work- 
ing degree than ever before ? If they are not pres- 
ent when one is baptized, then he is not, in truth, 
baptized at all, except in the sense that one when 
drowned is baptized. Such a performance is not 
a Christian baptism. Herein is seen the reason 
why an infant, having neither faith nor heart in 
the matter, is not and can not be baptized. A 
so-called baptism in such case is too entirely out- 
ward to be of any value to the infant or of any 
service to God. But we affirm our proposition, 
not on the ground that baptism is inclusive of both 
faith and heart, in that they are both intensely 
present in it, but on the authority of the word of 
God only. He, alone, knows why and when he 
forgives sins, except as he has revealed these things 
to us. We know them only as we, by faith, rest 
in the word of God. The objection to our propo- 



yS baptism; its designs. 

sition, made on the ground that baptism is out- 
ward, is, therefore, not well taken. 

Persons of respectable intelligence and of un- 
doubted piety, have been known to object, on the 
ground that they knew their sins were pardoned 
before they were baptized. They could give the 
date of the happy event, even the very moment 
of its occurrence. They could not, therefore, re- 
gard baptism as an appointment or ordinance of 
God, **for remission of sins." 

With them, the fact of pardon was not a matter 
of faith in God's word. Their assurance w.as con- 
ditioned, not upon knowing or understanding or 
believing the word of God or any part thereof; 
they avowed themselves as being conscious of the 
fact; therefore, they knew it to be true. A dis- 
cussion with such an one of the question under 
consideration would be an absurdity. His one 
witness — consciousness — whose testimony is, with 
him, decisive of the question, whatever may be 
said by God, angels, or men to the contrary, is an 
ex parte witness. The witness asserts that his 
friend — himself — was, on a certain day, at a cer- 
tain moment, pardoned ; a thing which he, the 
witness, could not know to be true, since the act 
of pardon does not take place within the range of 
his (or its) possible knowing. To such a state- 
ment, the only possible, logical, reply is : The 
witness has knowingly lied, or he has stated falsely 



OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. 79 

through being deceived. On no rational view of 
the case has such, so-called, testimony any bearing 
on the question in contest. 

It is objected, that if baptism be for remission 
of sins, then, one's salvation is dependent upon 
the presence of third parties. And since the ob- 
jector regards this as certainly an error, he there- 
fore holds the hypothesis which he supposes in- 
volves it, to be an error also. 

Let it be carefully noted that: i. The Bible 
does nowhere say that one's salvation may take 
place without the presence of third parties. 2. It 
gives no account of any one's having been pardoned 
when and where there were not third parties pres- 
ent. 3. The Bible gives us no facts or principles 
from which such an inference is necessary or even 
probable. 4. It mentions the conversion of many 
thousands of persons, men and women, at times 
and places quite wide apart. These conversions, 
beyond a doubt, were all made in accordance with 
the will of God, and yet in every case where 
there is anything said on the point, it is made clear 
that third parties were present. 5. It is suscepti- 
ble of satisfactory proof that now no person is 
ever converted without the presence or co-opera- 
tion of third parties. 6. It is most distinctly 
taught by the spirit of God, in the Bible, that third 
parties are demanded, required, commissioned, 
qualified, and sent into all the world, to lost sin- 



8o baptism; its designs. 

ners, to be instrumental in their conversion from 
sin. Why were the prophets in the world if not 
that they should be instrumental in the salvation 
of men ? God seems to have said in this fact that 
third parties were needed. 

It is a maxim of law that a person intends to 
do what he does. This rule of common sense 
may be applied to the doings of God as well as 
to those of men. He did send third parties to 
sinners to convert them. In proof of this I cite 
the New Testament. Having converted the sin- 
ner in this way, both always and everywhere ; and 
since God could not do, nor intend to do any thing 
without a good reason, a perfect reason, it follows 
that there is a reason, never to be controverted 
without making a direct reflection upon God, for 
the presence of third parties at the conversion of 
sinners. Therefore, the objection to our position, 
on the ground that it requires the presence of third 
parties, in the conversion of sinners, is not valid. 

The great magna-charta of salvation — the great 
commission — is a conclusive proof of our position. 

Jesus, just ere he stepped from Olive's brow 
upon the chariot of ascension and was borne in 
glorious and joyous triumph up to the eternal 
mansions of the blessed, said to his chosen twelve: 
' * Go into all the world and preach the gospel to 
every creature." 

Why was this, if it was not because these third 



OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. 8 1 

parties were, according to God's plan of salvation, 
necessary? The people must believe in order to 
be saved; they must hear in order to' believe; the 
gospel must be preached that it may be heard ; the 
people could not hear without the preacher, and 
he could not preach unless he should be sent. 
Such are the unmistakable teachings of "God's 
word " in regard to the salvation of the soul. So, 
it is God's plan to send third parties to sinful men, 
that they may hear the gospel, believe it, obey 
it, and be saved. If one should desire that this 
point should be elaborated further, let him exam- 
ine, with us, a few passages of the scriptures, 
further. 

Matt. i6: 19: **I will give unto thee the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and 
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven." At this time Jesus was near 
the cross — the end of his earthly mission. As the 
Father had sent the Son into the world, so, now, 
he sends his apostles into the world. The Divine 
theory for salvation, was that henceforth whoever 
would hear the apostles, heard Jesus and the Father 
who sent him ; and whoever refused to hear the 
apostles, refused, thereby, to hear Jesus and his 
Father. The gospel, with its ordinances, was 
committed to the apostles, and it was by them 
committed to faithful men, who should be able to 



82 baptism; its designs. 

teach others, also. See Mar. i6: i6; II. Cor. 4: 
7 ; II. Tim. 2 : 2, etc. 

These lessons lie patent on the very surface of 
the inspired word of God. After the apostles en- 
tered upon their work the duty of every one who 
would be saved was to enquire of them or of some 
faithful one, coming after them, who could tell 
him what is "appointed for him to do," or, "who 
should tell them words whereby they might be 
saved." It is easy to find fault with this position 
and say: "Those who are sent for might not be 
willing or able to go," or, "they might drop dead 
on the way," or, "the sinner might die before the 
teacher could be had," etc. Then comes the 
question: "Must the salvation of the soul be con- 
tingent upon the whim, the will, or upon some 
condition or circumstance of third parties?" 

( But well informed men, who are, in their hearts, 
loyal to God, do not talk that way. God knew 
all the facts, actual and possible, in regard to men 
for all time, when he gave us the Bible, and yet 
he made the presence of third parties necessary to 
the faith and obedience of the sinner in order to 
his salvation. 

But what is the meaning of the quotation at the 
head of this paragraph ? There may be questions 
raised in regard to some matters mentioned or al- 
luded to in the passage that are not of easy ex- 
planation. As touching our position it seems to 



OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. 83 

me to be entirely clear. Peter was to have the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven. This , is , certainly 
true, whatever may be true as to the other apos- 
tles. The delivery to him of the keys must signify 
that the holder was, thereby, to have the power 
to bind and to loose as it respects the kingdom 
of heaven. Literally, it means that if one should 
come desiring to enter into the kingdom and Peter 
should loose the door for him, or, should open the 
way to him, then the way should, likewise, be 
opened to him, into heaven. On the other hand, 
if the door should be closed and kept closed 
against him by the apostle Peter, it would be 
closed against him in heaven. So the people were 
given to understand that, if they would be saved, 
they must enter the kingdom here and expect to 
enter heaven hereafter, by way of the apostles^ 
third parties. It is true, now and here, that no 
one can enter the kingdom of heaven except by or 
through the way pointed out by the apostles. 

The way may be open to some who do not come 
by the apostolic road, where the fault arises from 
hard circumstances, which prevented them from 
finding the door, unlocked by the apostle Peter. 
It is probable that God knows how to manage 
such cases. It is certain that we do not. God, 
who is the law-maker — the Lord of the law — can, 
of right, go outside of the law if he sees fit. He 
has not authorized us to do so ; and hence if we 



84 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

do SO we sin. We are not only not authorized to 
preach that those who go not in through the way 
of apostoHc ingress may nevertheless enter the 
kingdom, but we are actually cut off from the 
privilege of so preaching. For Jesus says : * ' What- 
soever you bind or loose on earth shall be bound 
or loosed in heaven." That statement is in force 
now, and it will be while the Christian Religion is 
in force on the earth. 

Does one say: **But those apostles were only 
instruments in the hands of God for opening or 
closing the door of salvation?" Certainly, this is, 
no doubt, true ; but still, the meaning can not be 
less than that God's will was to be expressed 
through them, and that when it was so expressed, 
it would be binding and final on earth and in 
heaven. These third parties, or their teachings, 
which is the same thing, are now, as in apostolic 
days, necessary to the soul's salvation, if it is to 
take place according to the word of God. To this 
God has tied us, though He may not have tied 
Himself. 

In connection with the foregoing citations and 
reasonings let the following passages be carefully 
considered: Acts 2: 40; I. Cor. 4: 15; I. Tim. 
4: 16; and James 5: 20. 

The apostle James asserts that one person may 
convert a sinner from the error of his way and save 
a soul from death. According to I. Cor. 4: 15, 



OBJECTIONS FURTHER CONSIDERED. 85 

the apostle Paul "begat the Corinthians through 
the gospel." According to Acts 2 : '40, the apos- 
tle Peter exhorted his hearers to save themselves 
"from this crooked generation." According to 
I. Tim. 4: 16, Timothy, by giving heed to certain 
things, might save ' ' both himself and those who 
heard him." 

Now, as the presence of third parties in the 
salvation of sinners is provided for in the word of 
God, so that no conversion is contemplated as 
taking place in the absence of such parties, it fol- 
lows that the objection to our affirmation, made 
on the ground that it conditions the conversion, 
and therefore the salvation of the sinner, upon the 
presence of third parties, is not vahd. 



Chapter V. 

DEFINITION AND MODE OF PROOF. 

Before entering, directly, upon the argument, 
I submit a [qw words on the subject of definition. 
If words, or thought bearers, are wrongly defined 
in a standard lexicon of a language, the learner, 
or speaker, or writer is apt to be carried into er- 
ror, perhaps grievous, and even calamitous. One 
looks into a dictionary that does not carefully dis- 
tinguish between the meanings of words and their 
metonymical or figurative uses, and he is about 
certain, if he be not a careful critic, to be confused 
and misled. He looks among the many, so-called, 
definitions of his word, selects one to suit his no- 
tion, which may not be the or a meaning of the 
word at all, and then proceeds to declare that 
Webster, Worcester, Richardson, or some stand- 
ard lexicon sustains his view. So he is happy in 
the thought of being in good company and of car- 
rying his point. But, the ground of his bliss is his 
ignorance of the fact that his definition, so suited 
to his case, and which gives him so great satisf^ic- 
tion, is no meaning of his word. 

No document is of any value to a reader unless 
its words had, at the time of its composition, defi- 

(86) 



DEFINITION AND MODE OF PROOF. 8/ 

nite meanings, and unless they are used in these 
meanings. 

The veracious author of a document will assume 
that his readers know the meanings of the words 
he uses, or that they have the means of knowing 
them, otherwise he would have no good reason for 
using them. True, one may employ a word in an 
unusual sense sometimes ; but in all such cases the 
meaning must be obvious from the connection in 
which it is found, or, from some circumstance of 
its use, or the writer must have explained the 
sense in which he uses it immediately upon using 
it. Otherwise he has no right to use the word as 
he does. 

One of the very brightest editors in our country, 
known to me, says: **Many terms have two or 
more meanings that are carelessly interchanged in 
their use in discussion," etc. 

Our lexicons define words, often, in a marvel- 
ously unscientific way, I think. Take the word 
**dip, " for example, as in Webster: ** Dip : i. To 
plunge or immerse. 2. To immerse for baptism. 
3. To wet, to moisten. 4. * * to engage or 
compromise; to mortgage." Now, who that 
thinks, believes that the word dip signifies : to wet, 
to moisten, to engage or compromise, to mort- 
gage? True, one may be wet by dipping; but, 
he may be killed, or made sick, or cooled off, or 
scalded, or soaked, or cleansed, in the same way. 



88 baptism; its designs. 

Must we conclude that, because by dipping a per- 
son these results may follow, therefore these are 
meanings of the word dip ? 

The latin word, Carpo, signifies to pluck, pick, 
pull, etc. It is also defined : to pillage, to rob, to 
steal. A case is given in the books of a boy 
who entered a neighbor's orchard by a back way, 
and, without the knowledge and against the will 
of the owner, carped his apples. These are the 
facts in the case. In translating the latin we say 
he '^ stole his apples." The boy plucked or pulled 
the apples. This is what the word carpo informs 
us that the boy did, and nothing more. It is not 
from the word carpo that we get the idea of steal- 
ing, for such an idea is not in it, and hence it 
ought not to be so defined. But this word and 
other words and circumstances, taken all together, 
make out a case. 

When one attempts to give the meaning of a 
word he should give it as unaffected by any other 
word or circumstance whatever. The character of 
an act, or the results thereof, should not be taken 
as the definition of a word employed to assist in 
setting forth the facts of an act. 

A tree is not often found to cast a shadow that 
is wholly unaffected by the shadow cast by any 
other tree. A reputation is scarcely ever found 
that is wholly that of any one given man or wo- 
man. So, not many words, in any composition, 



DEFINITION AND MODE OF PROOF. 89 

are found to have just their own and all of their 
own meaning, unaffected by any other word or 
circumstance in the connection. This word, carpo, 
names one prominent fact in this theft, viz. : to 
pull or to pluck, but no more, for it has no more 
to say. Of course the word is responsible for no 
more than what is contained in it. The boy 
plucked or pulled the fruit ; and but for other 
facts in the connection stated he must be held to 
be entirely innocent of theft. Now, therefore, a 
lexicon that gives, ''to steal,'' as a definition of 
carpOy is not in the line of legitimate lexicography. 

A word, at a given time, has one and but one 
current sense. This one, current sense, must be 
the one accepted as its meaning at the time it was 
used in the book or document under considera- 
tion, in all places in said document where it is 
found, unless the connection does not permit it. 

The meaning of a word in any given place is, 
prima facie, what its meaning is, when alone. A 
word has a sense when it is unaffected by any other 
word or circumstance whatever; that is, as it stands 
alone on a page otherwise blank. This meaning 
is the meaning of the word. Often, in composition, 
it seems to appear in a modified sense, sometimes 
in a very modified sense. In such cases the mean- 
ing which a given word seems to have is not a 
meaning of the word itself so much as it is the 
sense of the whole connection. In case the word, 



90 baptism; its designs. 

being considered, designates or stands for some 
prominent feature, circumstance, or part of the 
general transaction, the sense of the whole con- 
nection is, in translating or defining, often put on it. 

In most cases, as for example where the boy is 
said to have stolen his neighbor's apples, truth 
does not suffer by such translating or defining. 

What I claim is that the metonymical or figur- 
ative employment of a word, often in a sense but 
little, if at all of kin to the meaning of the word, 
ought not to be given or taken as a definition of 
the word, but only as an allowably free figurative 
use of the word. 

In all cases where a word is employed, the pre- 
sumption is that it has, in the place, its current 
meaning. If one denies this the burden of proof 
is on him. 

If one must admit that words, generally, have 
two or more meanings each, and that the reader 
or hearer has a right to assume that any one of 
its so-called meanings is as legitimate or defensi- 
ble as any other, in any given place of its occur- 
rence, it would follow that no discourse or writing 
is of any certain value ; that thoughts, in any effort 
that can be made to convey them to others, are 
quite as likely to be concealed as they are to be 
revealed, by the words that are used. 

This, I believe, is a legitimate conclusion from 
the hypothesis. Then, that certainty which is so 



DEFINITION AND MODE OF PROOF. 9 1 

important in the matter of marriage, heirship, di- 
vorce, notes, bonds, mortgages, records of all kinds 
— deeds, letters, books, papers, and orders in re- 
gard to peace and war — every thing is at an end. 
Therefore it is assumed, in the following pages, 
that words have, at a given time, one and but one 
current meaning, in any given instrument. This 
one, definite, current sense is the one to be ac- 
cepted wherever the word is used unless the con- 
nection absolutely forbids it ; and he who makes 
this assertion rnust prove it. Canon Farrar says: 
"It has been a terrible disaster to the Christian 
Church that she accepted without challenge these 
vicious principles of Talmudic interpretation. In 
the preposterous form of the multiplex census of 
scripture, the commentators, from the days of 
Origen down to modern times, practically adopted 
the old Jewish Pardes — the method of explaining 
scripture which divided it into the four regions 
of, Peshat, Remez, Darijch, and Sod, or the lit- 
eral, inferential, homiletic, and mystic senses of 
the written word. In my History of Interp7'etation 
— the Bampton Lectures for 1885 — I have shown 
the fatal influence which these false conceptions 
exercised for centuries over the science of biblical 
exposition. They have filled reams of forgotten 
commentaries with masses of teachings which, 
when not positively erroneous, are yet absolutely 
irrelevant to the original text. Much may be al- 



92 baptism; its designs. 

lowed to the exigencies of moral and homiletic in- 
struction, but it can not be laid down too strongly 
that nothing should be offered as the interpreta- 
tion of scripture except what can be legitimately 
shown to be the literal, historic, grammatical, and 
contextual meaning, together with such inferences 
as spring immediately and indisputably from that 
meaning. The books of scripture were written, 
as all books have always been written since the 
world began, with the object of being understood; 
and the starting-point of all real exposition must 
always be the sense which the words would have 
borne among those to whom they were primarily 
addressed." 



Chapter VI. 

BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 

Is this proposition true? that is, is the subject 
so related to the predicate that the latter must be 
affirmed of the former and not denied. The proof 
of this proposition, that reason demands and on 
which we are bound to accept of it and act upon 
it, must be: i. Homogeneous with the proposition 
itself, and, 2. It must be sufficient in quantity. 

I. Whether our proposition be true or not, God 
knows; and, unless God shall in some way give 
us information on it, we do not and can not know. 
That is, from the very nature of the case the proof 
of our thesis must come from God and not from 
men. Every question in respect to the faith, or 
to the worship of God, and any questions as to 
the grounds of our hope for the future, in this life 
or the life to come, must be referred, for settle- 
ment, to the word of God. This point can not, 
well, be urged too often or too much. The inter- 
ests involved, and the great liability of men's going 
astray and making void the word of God by their 
traditions, plead the necessity for the strictest ad- 
herence to this rule. The facts in the history of 
the two Catholic and of most of the Protestant 

(93) 



94 baptism; its designs. 

churches are abundant, in proof of the necessity 
for observing this rule. 

Whether the baptism of John was from heaven 
or was of men, was a question propounded by the 
Master to the "Chief Priests and the Elders of 
the people " of the Jews. They repHed, "we can 
not tell." Many in our day seem to think "it is 
of men." 

Indeed, the controversy is now, as it has been 
in all the past, whether any thing in the Bible 
should be held and regarded as being from heaven 
— or is it not all "of men." With those who 
hold the latter view, more or less distinctly, the 
healthy moral effect of a sturdy faith in the exist- 
ence of a personal God, a Savior, the Holy Spirit, 
in the inspiration of the scriptures, in the reality 
of heaven, hell, and in a state of future rewards 
and punishments, is not possible. < 

2. On this division of the present chapter I need 
not enlarge much. The thoughtful reader will 
judge for himself whether, i. The evidence offered 
in support of the affirmation herein made is homo- 
geneous with it or not; and, 2. Whether the amount 
of evidence offered is sufficient to establish the 
position taken. 

3. Let it be agreed that our proofs must be from 
God, and that they must be pertinent and abun- 
dant. No mere man, unassisted, or uninspired, 



BAPTISM IS FOR REMISSION OF SINS. 95 

can possibly know the mind of God on this or on 
any like subject. I. Cor. 2: 11-16. 

But, when a portion of the scriptures is cited, 
in proof, what must such passage contain? 

I. It must contain, in some way, the subject 
of our proposition — baptism. This term must be 
expressly mentioned; or, it must be so embraced 
in what is expressly mentioned that the inference 
that it is in the passage must be, not a merely 
possible one, but a necessary one. 

When an inference, simply, may be drawn, it 
is always true that it may not be drawn. As long 
as it is true that an inference may, possibiy, not 
be drawn, it is not proved that it should be drawn. 
And as long as it is not proved that it must be 
drawn, from given premises, logic requires noth- 
ing but a denial. 

If he rely upon inference for his conclusion, the 
affirmant will, if he be a fair, truth-loving man, 
put his finger upon his proof passage and say : 
•'though the term, baptism, is not specifically 
named in this, my proof text, still it is virtually 
mentioned, it is necessarily impHed in the follow- 
ing words, viz. : (Then he will cite them.) In no 
other way may he expect to enlist the attention or 
merit the respect of an intelligent, truth-loving 
people. 

Any attempt to speak in such general, indefi- 
nite terms, as, in the least to leave the point at 



96 baptism; its designs. 

issue obscure, or that would not make manifest the 
pertinence of what is offered in proof, is, prima 
facie, conclusive evidence of a want of candor. 
This, when it is manifest, is, or should be, the ruin 
of the guilty one. 

2. The phrase, "remission of sins," must also 
be present in the passage offered in proof. For, 
if the words "remission of sins, "be not present, 
either in terms or by necessary inference, in the 
proof text, no such conclusion as we are affirm- 
ing, can be drawn from it. Nihil ex nihilo fit. 

3. These two terms must be so related, in the 
proof passage, that the rules or laws of language 
require that the predicate must be affirmed, and 
not denied, of the subject. 



Chapter VII. 

LEPROSY, SIN AND THE WILL OF GOD 
REGARDING THEM. 

It is probable that the Tabernacle and the ser- 
vices connected therewith, were, in some respects, 
typical of the Church of Christ, and of some things 
pertaining thereto. See Heb. 9: 1-12. "Now, 
even the first covenant had ordinances of divine 
service and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. 

"For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, 
wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and 
the shew-bread ; which is called the Holy place. 
And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which 
is called the Holy of holies ; having a golden cen- 
ser, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round 
about with gold, wherein was a golden pot hold- 
ing the manna and Aaron's rod that budded, and 
the tables of the covenant ; and above it cherubim 
of glory overshadowing the mercy seat ; of which 
things we can not now speak particularly. Now, 
these things having been thus prepared, the priests 
go in continually into the first tabernacle, accom- 
plishing the services ; but into the second the high- 
priest alone, once in the year, not without blood 
which he ofifereth for himself and for the errors of 

(97) 



98 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

the people : the Holy-Ghost this signifying, that 
the way into the holy place has not yet been made 
manifest while as the first tabernacle is yet stand- 
ing ; which is a parable for the time now present ; 
according to which are offered both gifts and sac- 
rifices that can not, as touching the conscience, 
make the worshipper perfect, being only (with 
meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordi- 
nances, imposed until a time of reformation. 

"But Christ having come, a high priest of the 
good things to come, through the greater and more 
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to 
say, not of this creation, nor yet through the 
blood of goats and calves, but through his own 
blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption." 

Now, in view of this quotation, and of other 
scriptures, which I need not here recite, I believe 
it is reasonably certain that there is, at least, a 
striking analogy existing between the case of the 
leper and his treatment under the law of the leper, 
on the one hand, and the case of the sinner and 
his treatment under the law of God, in the new 
covenant, on the other. 

I. Leprosy was not and is not curable, in its 
more malignant stages, by merely human skill or 
power. So, none can forgive sins but God. I 
believe there is no case of a leper having been 
cured, mentioned in the Bible, except such as were 



THE WILL OF GOD REGARDING SIN. 99 

cured by direct divine power ; as the case of Naa- 
man. II. Kings 5: 1-14: "Now Naaman, cap- 
tain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great 
man with his master, and honourable, because by 
him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria : 
he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a 
leper. And the Syrians had gone out by compa- 
nies and had brought away captive out of the land 
of Israel a little maid ; and she waited on Naaman's 
wife. And she said unto her mistress, Would God 
my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria ! 
for he would recover him of his leprosy. And one 
went in, and told his lord, saying, Thus and thus 
said the maid that is of the land of Israel. And 
the king of Syria said, Go to, go, and I will send 
a letter unto the king of Israel. And he departed, 
and took with him ten talents of silver, and six 
thousand pieces of gold, and ten changes of raiment. 
And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, 
saying, Now, when this letter is come unto thee, 
behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant 
to thee, that thou mayest recover him of his lep- 
rosy. And it came to pass, when the king of Is- 
rael had read the letter, that he rent his clothes, 
and said. Am I God, to kill and to make alive, 
that this man doth send unto me to recover a man 
of his leprosy? Wherefore consider, I pray you, 
and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. And 
it was sOy when Elisha the man of God had heard 



lOO baptism; its designs. 

that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he 
sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent 
thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he 
shall know that there is a prophet in Israel. So 
Naaman came with his horses and with his char- 
iot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. 
And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying. 
Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh 
shall come again to thee and thou shalt be clean. 
But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, 
Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to 
me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord, 
his God, and strike his hand over the place, and 
recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, 
rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of 
Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? 
So he turned and went away in a rage. And his 
servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, 
My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some 
great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how 
much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, 
and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped 
himself seven times in Jordan, according to the 
saying of the man of God : and his flesh came 
again like unto the flesh of a Httle child, and he 
was clean." 

Mark i : 40-44: "And there cometh to him a 
leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, 
and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make 



THE WILL OF GOD REGARDING SIN. lOI 

me clean. And being moved with compassion, 
he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and 
saith unto him, I will ; be thou made clean. And 
straightway the leprosy departed from him, and 
he was made clean. And he strictly charged him, 
and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him. 
See thou say nothing to any man : but go thy 
way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy 
cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for 
a testimony unto them." 

2. The leper was not allowed to be among God's 
people, but when the fact of his leprous condition 
was known to exist, he was removed from among 
them. So it should be, now, as to the sinner. 
Then, there were persons whom God had appointed 
whose duty it was to watch for cases of leprosy ; 
and when found, the lepers were removed. So it 
should be now, as to the sinner in the church. 

3. There were, no doubt, many cases of incipi- 
ent leprosy that recovered. The priests were to 
watch such cases and to keep the parties confined. 
Not until the priest decided that the leprosy was 
gone, or, that the leper was clean as respects the 
leprosy itself, did the ^' law of the leper" require 
any duty or thing to be done by any one, except, 
in cases where the leprosy persisted, the priest 
must then have the leper removed. 

But when it was decided that the leprosy was 
gone, the leper was still unclean and must suffer 



I02 baptism; its designs. 

continued separation from the fellowship of God's 
people and all blessings pertaining to such fellow- 
ship until, according to the law of the leper, he 
became clean. See Lev., chapters 13, 14. 

When the leprosy was gone and the leper was 
declared to be clean, he was to procure two birds, 
etc. (see Lev. 14: 1-32), for his cleansing. Among 
the things that the leper had to do, in order to 
his being clean, was the bathing of his whole flesh 
in water. The antitype to this bath of the leper, 
if it have any, is the baptism of the sinner — the 
bath, or laver, of regeneration. There was no cer- 
emonial cleansing of one under Moses, without a 
bath of the whole flesh in water, whatever the 
cause of the uncleanness might be. The law pro- 
vided for, or required many sprinklings of blood, 
and of blood mixed with water, but there were no 
sprinklings of water unmixed. These sprinklings 
did not point to our baptism, but rather to the 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, the blood of the 
new covenant. See Heb. 12: 24, et al. No one, 
under the law, having been unclean, was allowed 
the privileges and blessings of God's congregation 
until, besides other duties performed, he had bathed 
his whole flesh in water. Though they were with- 
out actual leprosy, yet they were unclean. This 
fact worked no hardship ; but, even if it had, it 
would not have been a safe or wise thing to have 
objected to it and set it aside on that account. Had 



THE WILL OF GOD REGARDING SIN. IO3 

the leper come before Moses and said : * * Moses, 
Aaron says I have no leprosy, it is gone. Now, 
there is no reason why I should be delayed from 
being among the brethren, and especially from 
seeing my family. This bath, etc., is a mere form, 
outward form. It does not stop the progress of, 
nor actually remove the leprosy. I suppose I might 
just as well walk into camp. Besides this, Moses, 
you ought to see that persons might be lepers 
where they could not get a priest, nor hysop, nor 
birds, and where no water could be found. Moses, 
you surely do not hold that one is to be kept away 
from the society of God's people, from the taber- 
nacle service, where is the priest, the high priest, 
the brazen altar, the laver, the seven-bowled golden 
lamps of God, the shew-bread, the censer, the 
ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, the angels, 
and the shekina ! The having of these blessings, 
Moses, can not possibly be suspended upon one's 
being bathed in water! Besides, the water might 
not be accessible, or it might be very cold ; it might 
cause one's death to do this thing. Moses, do you 
not really mean that persons had better, in your 
judgment, do this thing who are in good health 
and feel like doing it ? It is not essential, at all ? 
Besides all these things, Moses, do you not see 
that miUions and millions of persons would or 
might be forever deprived of these precious bless- 
ings of God if their having them should be made 



104 baptism; its designs. 

to depend upon the observance of a mere outward 
ordinance? It can not be. Out upon such a 
rehgion." 

What may we suppose that Moses would say 
to such an one? He would, I presume, reply 
about as follows: "God has made the order to 
which you refer. It is not mine to make or to 
unmake law in such cases. * Who art thou that 
repliest against God?'" 

The fact that, in cases of leprosy, the leper was 
to be, decided to be ** healed of his leprosy" be- 
fore he had any duty to perform, is regarded by 
some as being typical evidence that, now, one's 
sins are to be forgiven before he ought to be bap- 
tized. But this conclusion is founded on a mis- 
conception of the point of analogy in the parable. 
The likeness does not hold between the rejnoving 
of the leprosy of the leper on the one hand, and 
the removing of the sinner's sins, on the other, 
but it is between the cleansing of the leper, after 
his actual leprosy is gone, and \hQ forgiveness of the 
sinner s sins. 

The sinner now is the leper under Moses; the 
sins of the sinner now, are the leprosy then. The 
forgiveness of the sinner now, is — not the cleans- 
ing of the leper from his leprosy, but — the cleans- 
ing of the leper whose leprosy is already gone. 
Then, says one, leprosy, in this type, corresponds 
to the sin of the sinner, and as the leprosy of the 



THE WILL OF GOD REGARDING SIN. IO5 

leper was certainly gone before the bath that was 
for his cleansing, so it seems to follow from this 
typical reasoning that the sinner's sins are or must 
be gone before he is baptized. Therefore, bap- 
tism is not for remission of sins, it is thought. 

Let us see. Sin may be, and it is, in fact, in 
the Bible, considered under two aspects, i. It is 
to miss the mark or way, and, in respect to serv- 
ing God, it is to do what he forbids or to refuse 
to do what he requires. 2. It signifies certain re- 
sults to the sinner, of violating the law of God. 
Sin, in the former sense, is never, in the Bible, 
said to be forgiven. It is not forgivable, in this 
sense. Therefore, even God does not forgive siivs, 
in this sense of the word. In the nature of the 
case He can not. Of course, says some thought- 
ful man, God does not, literally, forgive, that is, 
send away, an act of transgression or disobedience 
of his law, but he may and does, in the case of 
pardoning the sinner, forgive certain effects or con- 
sequences of his sin. In this sense is God said to 
forgive sins, and in this sense only. 

The effects of sin on the sinner are: i. He is 
guilty. 2. He is liable to the penalty of sin. So, 
as it was under the law of the leper that the bath, 
besides other duties performed, was not to remove 
the leprosy of the leper, but, as a divinely ap- 
pointed condition, it was for the removal of certain 
effects of the leprosy, and for restoring him — the 



io6 baptism; its designs. 

leper — to the family of God, with all the blessings 
thereof; in like manner baptism is not for the re- 
moval of actual sin, but, as a divinely appointed 
condition, it is for the remission of certain effects 
or consequences of sin. 

2. Jesus healed a leper. Mark i : 40-45 : ** And 
there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and 
kneehng down to him, and saying unto him, If 
thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being 
moved with compassion, he stretched forth his 
hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; 
be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy 
departed from him, and he was made clean. And 
he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him 
out, and saith unto him. See thou say nothing to 
any man : but go thy way, shew thyself to the 
priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which 
Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. 
But he went out and began to publish it much, 
and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that 
Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but 
was without in desert places: and they came to 
him from every quarter." 

Jesus cleansed him, and told him to go and show 
himself to the priest, "and offer for thy cleansing 
those things which Moses commanded, for a testi- 
mony unto them." Here, at the touch of Jesus, 
the leprosy "departed from him and he was 
cleansed." That is, he was cleansed from actual 



THE WILL OF GOD REGARDING SIN. lO/ 

leprosy. Still he was not cleansed from the effects 
of it ; he was still unclean. He could not return 
to the camp of Israel and enjoy fellowship with 
God's chosen people till he should comply with 
the law of the leper, as prescribed through Moses. 
These offerings which he was to make were not 
to cleanse him from the leprosy but from certain 
effects of it. 



Chapter VIII. 

ISRAEL DELIVERED FROM BONDAGE. 

It is, I believe, generally allowed that the de- 
liverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage was 
typical of the deliverance of the sinner from the 
bondage to sin. See Ex., chapters 14, 15, and 
I. Cor. 10: 1-4. There is certainly a striking 
likeness between the two. Moses was a child with 
whom God's hand was from birth. So was Jesus. 
Jesus was the prophet the Lord our God raised up 
like unto Moses. Moses was mediator of the old 
covenant; Jesus was the mediator of the new. 
Moses entered the territory of those whom he 
would deliver, sent, directly, of God. So did 
Jesus. Moses went, armed with miraculous power, 
which he displayed before the people as proof that 
he was sent of God to deliver them from bondage. 
So Jesus came to the sinner and manifested by 
signs, wonders, and miracles that he was from 
God, sent to deliver him from the bondage of sin. 
The people would not follow Moses till they be- 
lieved. They could not, and they ought not. So 
it is in regard to following Jesus Christ. They 

believed Moses and resolved to follow him, and 

(108) 



ISRAEL DELIVERED FROM BONDAGE. IO9 

did follow him to the Red Sea. So, now, one 
believes Jesus, or has faith, and resolves to follow 
him — repents — and to this extent, does follow 
him. But Israel was not yet delivered, completely, 
from bondage when they had believed Moses and 
had resolved to follow him, and had come to the 
Red Sea. So the sinner's salvation is not yet com- 
plete when he has believed, and resolved to fallow 
Jesus (repented). Moses, standing on the shores 
of the sea with Pharoah and his hosts pressing hard 
upon Israel, said, Stand still and see the salvation 
of God. Moses was commanded to stretch forth 
his hand over the waters, which he did, and they 
were divided and Israel was "baptized into Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." On the other side 
— after their baptism — they were to see their 
former masters, no more. Their masters were 
destroyed and they were free. So sin, to which 
the sinner is in bondage, is not gone till the sinner 
is baptized. This is the force of the type, if there 
be a type in the case. Then their passage of the 
Red Sea was their baptism into Moses. I. Cor. 
10: 2. Now, our baptism puts us into Jesus 
Christ. Gal. 3 : 27. 

Then, Israel did not understand that their salva- 
tion was complete, nor did they rejoice in the sal- 
vation of God till they were *'all baptized into 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea." See Ex. 14: 
28, to 15: I, 2. So now, no sinner, under the 



no baptism; its designs. 

reign of Jesus Christ, or after Pentecost, is men- 
tioned anywhere in the New Testament as rejoic- 
ing in the faith that his sins were forgiven him, 
till after he was baptized. 



Chapter IX. 

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 

The, so called, John's baptism, was not, ex- 
actly, Christ's baptism. Still, it was from heaven 
and was not of men. God sent John to preach 
and to baptize. Thus he was to prepare a people 
for the Lord; thus he was to manifest the Christ 
to Israel, as the Son of God. In ''preparing a 
people for the Lord" he baptized them. This 
baptizing had one purpose, or more than one, cer- 
tainly. Those who rejected the baptism of John 
rejected the counsel of God against themselves. 
Those who would be baptized, but who were not, 
in faith and heart, ready for it, were rejected. 

As a very suggestive and forcible lesson point- 
ing to the conclusion that John's baptism was for 
remission of sins, I cite Matt. 3: 13-17: "Then 
Cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto 
John, to be baptized of him. But John would 
have hindered him, saying, I have need to be bap- 
tized of thee, and comest thou to me ? But Jesus 
answering said unto him. Suffer it now: for thus 
it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then 
he suffereth him. And Jesus, when he was bap- 
tized, went up straightway from the water: and 



112 baptism; its designs. 

lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he 
saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and 
coming upon him , and lo, a voice out of the heav- 
ens, saying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
am well pleased." 

The facts in this case are that Jesus came " from 
Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by 
him." But John made objection, on the ground 
that he had need, rather, to be baptized by Jesus. 
In reply, Jesus said: "Suffer it now, for thus it 
becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he 
suffered him. 

One who considers all these facts carefully, would 
not, probably, be inclined to think that this right- 
eous thing is a small thing, or an unimportant 
matter. Jesus walked twenty-five or thirty miles 
to attend to it, and then insisted on its being done, 
reminding John that it was a duty devolved upon 
both of them; for, so must the phrase: "thus it 
becomes us to fulfill all righteousness," be under- 
stood. John objected. Why did he object ? He 
had just refused to baptize many of the Scribes 
and Pharisees who came to his baptism. In that 
case the objection was made on the ground that 
those who sought to be baptized were not peni- 
tent. John demanded that they should show signs, 
or give evidence of repentance before he could 
baptize them. "Bring forth fruit worthy of re- 
pentance," said the faithful wilderness preacher^ 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. II3 

You, said he, put your claim, of right to be bap- 
tized by me, on the ground that you are Abraham's 
seed ; but I require, in order that you may be bap- 
tized, that you shall repent of your sins and con- 
fess them. So, it seems that John was baptizing 
persons who, though sinners, had repented and 
confessed. Following this is the account of Jesus' 
baptism. 

When Jesus came to John he did not come as 
one who had been a sinner, who had repented, 
confessed, etc. Therefore John did not see the 
reason why he should baptize him. John held that 
he had need to be baptized by Jesus, "and com- 
est thou to me?" This question, put by John, 
must, I think, mean that he did not understand 
himself to be baptizing persons who were pure or 
sinless, as was Jesus. I suppose any other one 
who should have appeared to be entirely free from 
sin, would have been rejected, as Jesus was. So 
the way is quite open to the conclusion that the 
baptisms of John were for remission of sins, with 
a decided leaning of the facts in that direction. 
John was in the habit of baptizing such persons, 
and such only, as confessed their sins. Of course 
Jesus could not do this, hence John's refusal. 

As something supposed to be out of harmony 
with the view here taken, if not suggestively against 
it, as some suppose, I will cite and examine Matt. 



114 baptism; its designs. 

3: 11: **I, indeed, baptize you, in water, unto 
(eis) repentance." 

This passage is not without its difficulties. It 
is held, by some persons, that John's baptism was 
for the purpose of bringing the people into repent- 
ance ; that repentance was a, and perhaps the end 
to be reached by the baptism. This conclusion 
is supposed to be justified, if not forced upon us, 
by the fact, here stated, that John baptized his 
disciples {eis metanoian) "into repentance." It 
is, therefore, thought that his baptism was before 
repentance and in order to it. It is held that their 
act of being baptized was a committing of them- 
selves to do, after their baptism, what, by the 
hypothesis, they had not done before ; that is, to 
repent. This view is, I suppose, wholly indefen- 
sible, so much so that God can not, by any means, 
be regarded as the author of it. No man, who 
is strictly honest, can give a pledge or obligation, 
in any form, that he will, at a future time, repent 
of his sins. He may say that he will repent to- 
morrow, but he does not tell the truth ; he does 
not mean to do it. We may do things, and things 
may be done for us, to insure or to induce larger 
measures of sorrow for sins and fix our purposes 
more firmly to live the life of those who are now 
penitent for all past sins, and who are now resolved, 
in case of sinning in the future, to turn away from 
it, and live lives of penitent devotion to God, 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. II5 

more and more as the days are going by, yet, in 
all such cases, repentance does precede, though it 
should be expected, designed, and required to 
follow the thing or things done. 

The word repentance is defined by Webster as 
follows: ''The act of repenting, or the state of 
being penitent." This distinction between the act 
of repenting and the state of being penitent is cer- 
tainly a correct one. The absurdity of supposing 
that one might be baptized into repentance in the 
former sense is so readily seen that a mere state- 
ment of the case carries the correct conclusion 
with it. 

It would seem, then, that the baptism of John 
must have put persons into a "state of being 
penitent." But before one can be in a "state of 
being penitent " he must have, already, repented. 
In any defensible view whatever, the act of re- 
pentance was before the baptism in the case of each 
one who was baptized. It seems to me, therefore, 
that the baptism that is said to have been "into 
repentance " was, to the baptized party, into di state 
of repentance. But, as the one baptized was, al- 
ready, so far as his own heart and spirit were con- 
cerned, in a state of penitence, it follows that his 
baptism did not induce these conditions in him, 
or put him into them. Then, it seems that, as the 
baptism was, certainly, "into repentance," and as 
the party being baptized had alreadly repented, and 



1 16 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

as to himself, was already in a state of penitence, 
the baptism is herein declared to have had the 
effect of bringing the baptized persons into formal 
and visible connection with the cause which John 
preached and with the people whom John was 
making ready for the Lord. The preacher's cry 
in the wilderness was: "Repent, for the king of 
heaven is at hand!" Turn you, turn you, or, re« 
pent, turn, was the text of John the Baptist. It 
was his text, not for one sermon only, but always 
and every-where. Now, when persons went to 
John and showed satisfactory signs of having re- 
pented and were then baptized, they occupied the 
position of the penitent and waiting ones. It was, 
I presume, into this state of penitence and waiting 
that John baptized the people. The distinguish- 
ing feature of John's preaching was that the people 
must repent else they could not be accepted by 
John, nor of God. Jesus and his disciples preached 
the same thing and in the same way, till the cru- 
cifixion. That ordinance, by means of which the 
baptized were designated as having accepted the 
call to repentance, as preached by John, might 
very well be said to be " into repentance." There 
are some other views taken of this passage by very 
true men of high attainments, but it is not deemed 
necessary to discuss them here. Whatever needs 
to be said more can be conveniently introduced 
into the examination of the following passages: 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. II7 

Mark i : 4 : * ' John was baptizing in the wilder- 
ness, preaching a baptism of repentance {eis) into 
remission of sins." Luke says, 3:3: "And he 
went into ail the regions round about the Jordan 
preaching a baptism of repentance {eis) into re- 
mission of sins." It is seen that both of these 
writers say the same thing; viz., that John an- 
nounced ' * a baptism of repentance into remission 
of sins." John was the herald sent before the 
coming Lord to prepare his way and to make 
ready a people for him at his coming. He an- 
nounced the kingdom of heaven at hand, and he 
exhorted all who would be his friends, who would 
enter into the kingdom and receive his blessings, 
to -speedily make the requisite preparations. 

Hitherto citizenship in the commonwealth of 
Israel had been conditioned upon descent from 
Abraham and circumcision, or, in the case of for- 
eigners, upon being bought with the money of a 
Jew, etc. Now, these conditions were being set 
aside, a new government is being introduced, a 
spiritual reign over the true Israel, the spiritual 
sons of Abraham. John was commissioned to de- 
clare to the people what they must be and do in 
order to enjoy the privilege of citizenship in this 
new kingdom *^at hand." In discharging this duty 
Mark says he preached * ' a baptism of repentance 
(eis) into remission of sins.'' 

Observe this passage does not say that he 



ii8 baptism; its designs. 

preached repentance for remission of sins. Though, 
without repentance there is, of course, no remis- 
sion of sins, yet this scripture does not announce 
the necessity of repentance in order to remission, 
except, possibly, by impHcation. The declaration 
is that he preached a baptism into, and therefore 
in order to remission of sins. Yet, it was not a 
baptism alone or by itself that he preached, but it 
was a baptism '*of repentance," qualified by re- 
pentance. The Greek is, ''baptisma metanoias," 
translated, a baptism of repentance. Metanoias is 
a noun in the genitive case, which case indicates 
origin or source, whence the notion or principal 
thought in the sentence is derived. 

W. E. Gelf, in his " Grammar of the Greek New 
Testament," Vol. II., page 153, third edition, says: 
"The genitive expresses the antecedent notion, 
that notion which precedes the principal verbal 
notion, in the series which forms the whole thought. ' ' 
And on page 199, same vol., he says: "when two 
substantives are so joined together that the one 
seems to depend upon and derive its force and 
meaning from the other, in any one of the rela- 
tions given above, that substantive on which the 
one depends, is in the genitive, as being in some 
respect antecedent to the proper conception of its 
state or nature, and hence arises the rule that when 
two substantives are joined together, the one that 
explains and more accurately defines the other, is 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. II9 

in the genitive, as it is the expression of some 
notion whence the notion of the other substantive 
springs." 

Buttman, in his Greek grammar, section 132, 
page 330, says: "In order to comprehend the 
genitive in its full syntactical relations, especially 
with verbs, we must premise that the fundamental 
idea of the genitive is that of separation, a going 
forth, whether out of the interior of any thing, or 
from its exterior ; and that, therefore, the idea of 
the prepositions eky out of the interior, apo, from 
the exterior or side of an object, is primarily in the 
genitive case itself" 

Winer's "Grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
ment, " page 184, says: "The genitive is acknowl- 
edged to be the whence case (the case denoting 
source, departure, or descent ; cf Hartung, Casus, 
§ 12), and is most clearly recognized as such in 
connection with words expressive of action, and 
accordingly with verbs. Its most common and 
most familiar appearance in prose, however, is in 
connecting two substantives ; here, through its 
gradually extended signification, it denotes every 
sort of dependence or belonging. ' ' 

Harrison, "Greek Prepositions," page 15, says: 
"The simplest case, apparently, at least, of the use 
of the genitive in Greek, is that in which, corre- 
sponding to the English "of," it is employed to 
qualify the preceding noun, and to show in what 



I20 baptism; its designs. 

more definite sense it is to be taken. "Louisville 
Debate," page 253. 

Moses Stuart, "Grammar of the Greek New 
Testament," page 161, says: (i) " The fundamental 
idea in this case has already been shown (in •§ 96) ; 
it is the whence case. This general idea may be 
applied to space, time, gnd finally to catisality or 
originating source, in its most extensive sense." 

Thus we see that the primary and essential notion 
expressed by the genitive case is antecedent in its 
character and not consequent ; that it looks back 
to some source or beginning out of which the 
principal or leading notion, in the se?ztence, takes 
its rise and from which it derives its value or by 
which it is modified. In the light of these author- 
itative statements of the law of the genitive case in 
New Testament Greek, I conclude that the repent- 
ance of the passage is clearly not that which is 
here declared to be into remission of sins. That 
is, it is not the object of the writer to declare that 
repentance is into remission of sins, but rather to 
say that out of it the baptism, in a sense, must 
spring ; or, that the desire to be baptized must have 
its origin in the fact that one had repented, else 
it would not be the baptism that John was an- 
nouncing for, or into, remission of sins. 

It is sometimes said that preaching is for remis- 
sion of sins, that heapjig is also ; that being born 
is in order to remission of sins, since no one can 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 121 

have remission of sins without first having been 
born, etc. Yes, I suppose it is also necessary that 
one should commit sin before he could obtain the 
remission of his sins. Such talk is the veriest 
trifling. The question for us here is. What does 
the inspired writer mean by what he says in this 
verse? It is certain that he declares something 
to be for remission of sins. Is it the repentance 
in this passage that is said to be for remission of 
sins ? 

We have shown that the repentance of this pas- 
sage looks not forward to an object, but looks back 
as a qualifier to some antecedent notion, which is, 
in this case — baptism. This antecedent notion, 
the writer says, has its origin in repentance, and 
is for, or into, remission of sins. Baptism is for 
remission of sins, but not of itself, or by itself; for 
it must look to repentance and see that, out of it, 
it had its origin. This is not only the grammatical 
force of the genitive, metanoias, but it is historically 
true that repentance bears the relation to baptism 
which is here indicated. At the fifth verse of this 
chapter it is said that the people ' * were all bap- 
tized by him in the river Jordan, * confessing their 
sins.'" The confessing was, I suppose, before the 
baptism, and it is certain that repentance precedes 
all confession of sins. According to this view, the 
baptism of the people was preceded by and condi- 
tioned upon their repentance. Indeed, their de- 



122 baptism; its designs. 

sire to be baptized grew out of the fact of their 
repentance — their sorrow for sins, their resolution 
to abandon them, and their wilHngness to use the 
means appointed for remission. If it be said, the 
confessions in these cases were implicit, not ex- 
plicit ; or, that they were implied in the fact of 
their baptism, but that they were not formally 
made in order thereto, my answer is: This is very 
doubtful, if not improbable. 

But, for our present purpose, it matters not 
which view is the correct one. Each, alike, re- 
quires that repentance should have preceded the 
baptism. John preached repentance (Matt. 3 : 2) 
as well as baptism, and when certain of the Phari- 
sees and Saducees came to his baptism, he seems 
to me to have demanded some evidence of the fact 
that they had repented, in order that the baptism 
might be so quahfied as to be "the baptism of re- 
pentance into remission of sins." So I conclude 
that whether the confession of sins and declaration 
of repentance took formal shape before baptism or 
not, it is at least true that the repentance preceded 
the baptism and was a necessary qualification of it. 

Having seen that the Harbinger preached a bap- 
tism of repentance, a baptism qualified by repent- 
ance, the question arises : What was the design of 
it? Of course, it had some design. The great 
majority of those who profess to serve God do now 
say, and they have in all the past eighteen centu- 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 123 

ries said, that the baptism of John was for {into) 
remission of sins; they have held that the Greek 
phrase, "m aphesin hamartion,'' should be ren- 
dered for, in order to, or, into remission of sins. 
A few persons have, during a comparatively late 
period, contended that the baptism of this passage 
was to have been submitted to on account of a fact 
already accomplished, or of an end already reached, 
and not in order to an end to be reached. This 
latter view not only contradicts the rules of lan- 
guage, which are founded on the nature of the 
human mind, but it contradicts the teachings of 
the word of God, as I understand things. 

Does this phrase, ^' eis aphesin hamartion^'' give 
the reason or ground on account of which the bap- 
tism might or should take place ? If so, the trans- 
lation ought to be, "because of remission of sins. " 
Does this phrase state the object, purpose, or end 
to be reached by the one who seeks the baptism 
of repentance ? Then it should be translated : for, 
or, in order to, or, into, remission of sins. I sup- 
pose it does, certainly, the one or the other. Let 
us look at the former hypothesis. If the phrase 
in question gives the reason or ground of the bap- 
tism ; that is, if what is stated in the phrase is 
supposed to have been already attained, and on 
this account the person who has "remission of 
sins," is entitled to be and ought to be baptized, 
it would follow that the fact of remission of sins, 



124 baptism; its designs. 

is to be taken as the reason why the one having 
it should repent, which is here declared to be a 
qualification for the baptism. That is, the people 
were called upon to both repent and be baptized, 
because their sins were forgiven. I do not see 
that receiving the remission of sins is any reason- 
able ground for repentance. So long as it is and 
always was and must be true that repentance is 
necessarily antecedent, and in order, to, remission 
of sins, it can not be that remission is prior to and 
is the reason or ground of repentance. Hence the 
interpretation of this passage that makes remission 
of sins already enjoyed the ground of repentance 
and baptism, is not the true one. 

Moreover, the preposition, eis, which shows the 
relation between the act of a penitent's being bap- 
tized and the remission of his sins, has no such 
meaning as would justify us in supposing that the 
sinner must first enjoy the remission of his sins, 
and then and therefore, repent and be baptized. 

Ex-President W. K. Pendleton, in "Christian 
Quarterly" for April, 1870, pages 148, 149, says: 

' ' While eis may be translated by so many differ- 
ent words and phrases, it never loses its proper 
meaning of *in,' * within.' This is its force every- 
where, namely : That the subject {that is, the true, 
logical subject) between which and something else this 
preposition is used to express a relation, comes or is 
brought to be ' in, ' * within, ' that something else. Dr. 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 1 25 

Harrison says: *When eis is added to the action 
or motion of the verb, or to any substantive idea 
that may imply these, and regard is had to the 
accusative case following, there arises from the 
conjunction of the preposition, with its sense of 
*in,' and 'within,' of the action or motion of the 
verb with its now defined direction, and of the ac- 
cusative case, with its power of marking the lirnits 
within which the action or motion is confined the 
sense of * into, ' and the effect is to represent the sub- 
ject of the action or motion as brought within the 
cirGumscribed space, class, or category, state, or circum- 
stances named by the noun in the accusative. * (Page 
221.) This statement describes precisely the cir- 
cumstances which are found in the passages which 
we have under discussion. Let us apply it to them. 
We begin with Mark's statement about John, that 

* he came preaching the baptism of repentance eis 
the remission of sins.' Here the phrase, 'baptism 
of repentance, ' is described by eis as having a rela- 
tive direction of ' in, ' ' within, ' a terminus ad quem; 
the accusative case — ' remission of sins ' — denotes 
the object with regard to which it has this relative 
direction, and the effect is to represent the person 
who is the subject of the baptism as brought ' into ' 
or within the state or circumstances described by 

* remission of sins.' 

"The passage in Acts 2: 38, requires the same 
explanation. The command of Peter, * Repent 



126 baptism; its designs. 

and be baptized,' is made by eis to point in a cer- 
tain direction ; not * around, ' ' above, ' or * beneath, ' 
but 'in,' 'within; ' and the circumscribed Hmits of 
this direction are defined by the accusative to be 
the remission of sins. The baptism looks to this, 
and nothing else, and the effect is to represent the 
subject of baptism as brought into or within the 
condition described by the logical accusative— ' th^ 
remission of sins.'" 

Mr. Jelf, in his ''Greek Grammar," Vol. II., 
page 296, says of m; "It expresses the same re- 
lations as en, except that it has the notion of a 
direction — whither — while en has the notion of rest 
— where. It is used to express the direction or 
motion of an action — into an object, or up to an 
object — into immediate contact with it ; especially 
to express the reaching of some definite point." 

Such, according to this authority, which is among 
the very best, is the meaning of the word which 
sets forth the relation between the baptism of John, 
which was a "baptism of repentance," and remis- 
sion of sins. In the light of the above definition 
of eis, it will not do to say that the baptism of 
this passage, qualified as it is, and as it had to be 
in order to be the baptism that John preached, is 
to take place in view of something that had already 
transpired, affording the reason or ground for it. 
The force of eis, which never looks back to a ground 
or reason, but always looks forward to some pur- 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 12/ 

pose or end to be reached, forbids this view. And 
since this view is not admissible it follows that the 
only other theory taken by any one, so far as I 
know, is the true one — the baptism of John was 
"for, or into, remission of sins." Q. JL. D. 

Deeming a thorough examination of this passage 
to be of much importance in our argument, I paused 
at this point and addresed the following note to 
Chas. Louis Loos, President of Kentucky Univer- 
sity, who is very eminently qualified to speak on 
the subject: 

" Is vietanoias, in Mark i : 4, a case of the ob- 
jective genitive? If so, why; if not, why not? 
Also, give me your idea of the meaning and force 
oi eis in the same passage." 

To this note, which is given here only in sub- 
stance, I received the following reply: 

Mark i : 4. baptisma vtetanoias eis aphesin Jia- 
martion. 

* ' There is nothing in the form of the expression 
bap. metanoias, to indicate whether it is the ob- 
jective or subjective genitive. These varieties of 
the genitive are not always, or even generally, de- 
termined by the form ; the connection, with other 
accompanying words, decides this matter. It is 
hermeneutically, as well as philologically, that such 
distinctions are discovered ; it is a logical question, 
chiefly. Furthermore — the terms objective and 
subjective, do not always — very often not — describe 



128 baptism; its designs. 

well the true nature and office of the genitive — 
too remotely and obscurely often to be clear to 
the inquirer. If we look into the Greek grammars 
we will find other more specific and intelligible, and 
much more truly descriptive definitions. So in this 
case. The proper designation of the genitive here 
is the characteristic, gua/i/j^in^^— describing the c/iar- 
acter of the baptisma — a very general use of this 
case. 

* * Now, when we say ' characteristic, qualifying, * 
we tell precisely what this expression means to say, 
i. e., that metanoias here qualifies the bap., tells 
what kind of a bap. it is — that the chief, true, 
real characteristic of it is this metanoia — that it 
proceeds from, rests upon it, involves it — as its 
cause, motive, value, justification. Read every- 
thing in connection with John's baptism — historic- 
ally, doctrinally, ethically — and you will see this 
with absolute certainty and clearness. I need not 
indicate this to you. John's great mission was to 
preach repentance ; he would not receive to his 
baptism those who had not repented, or those of 
whose repentance he was not assured as genuine. 
Note his directions to the various classes who came 
to him, and asked what they were to do to testify 
to the reality of their metanoia. 

**If we could manipulate our English tongue in 
the construction of compounds, as the Germans do 
theirs, we would call this baptism a repentance 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. I2g 

baptism. The Germans call it a Buss-Taufe ; that 
would show the precise relation of repentance to 
baptism in this case. Many, very many, such cases 
of the use of the genitive occur in Greek, and in 
the Greek New Testament, as well as in the Sep- 
tuagint, or in the Hebrew Scriptures similarly. 
Let me note a few: — to pneuma tes aletheiaSy 'the 
spirit of truth ; ' John cc. : 14 and 15, and I. John 
4 : 6 ; to pneuma tes planes, ib : basileus dikaiosunes. 
Winer regards such expressions as nomos tou andros, 
Rom. 7:2; nomos tou leprou, Lev. 14: 2; Soma 
tes sarkoSy Col. 1 : 22 ; {en to somati tes sarkos) — 
i. e., the body in which carnality permanently 
dwells, as illustrations of this use of the genitive — 
as 'qualifying, characteristic' To this may be 
added soma tes hamartias ; i. e., the body which 
belongs to sin, and in which sin dwells ; which sin 
characterizes." 

II. 

I . " The question concerning *m aphesin hamar- 
tion ' is, I think, a very simple one. So far as the 
preposition eis is concerned, its natural, general 
force is perfectly well understood — that it denotes 
relation in the way of motion or tendency towards, 
or to, or into an object — the second two being the 
full expression of the idea. This notion of rela- 
tion is, however, naturally variable, since the re- 
lation has, necessarily, many modifications, even 
in the physical sense. To intelligent minds this 



130 baptism; its designs. 

needs no argument or illustration ; it is so with 
all words of this sort. 

*'Then, in the sense not physical, when it de- 
notes mental action, in the relations of things not 
material — again many modifications must arise. 
This is all so plain that it must be accepted with- 
out debate. 

"We can not, in this case, as in many other 
cases, at once decide, from the mere presence of 
the preposition, that it denotes for, unto, into ; 
/. e., 'to reach, or attain to ' — the forgiveness of 
sins. But, most certainly, from the nature of the 
preposition and the form of the statement in the 
text, this is the meaning that would at once easily 
and promptly be suggested to the mind — to be 
maintained unless some strong reason arising, 
necessarily and imperatively, from the nature of 
the case, should oblige us to modify it — in other 
words, the burden of proof that it does not mean 
for^ i. e., 'to attain to, ' lies certainly and heavily 
on him who denies this simple, primary, obvious 
sense of the preposition and expression. I think 
no scholarly unprejudiced man will deny this ; it 
is too plain. 

2. "The expression, ' eis aphesm Jiamartion,' is, 
fortunately, not Hmited to the history of John's 
baptism, as given by Mark and Luke. Suppose 
we allow that this occurrence of these words 
needs further light to determine certainly its exact 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. I3I 

meaning ; we can refer at once to a recurrence of 
these words where no question can possibly arise 
about its definite import Math. 26: 28. Who 
doubts, who questions that the blood of Jesus — 
the blood of the New Covenant — is for, brings 
to the remission. Without the shedding of blood 
there is no remission of sins, is the Divine Law. 
Heb. 2: 22. 

"This process of determining the meaning of 
these words relative to John's baptism is strictly 
according to accepted laws of exegesis, and the 
only just and safe one. 

• ' Finally, with impartial and competent expound- 
ers, men who could address themselves to this task 
with the necessary ability of scholarship, scriptural 
knowledge, and exegetical skill and freedom from 
creed-bias, there has been no trouble about the 
meaning of these words, declarative of the charac- 
ter and purpose of the baptism of John. 

*' There has been, also, a very remarkable unan- 
imity in the great current of the mind and judg- 
ment of the Church from the beginning down the 
ages — including the apostolic period and that of 
the fathers, when the language of the New Testa- 
micnt v/as yet the language of the great Eastern 
Church. It is only religious prepossessions that 
have made what is so singularly simple and clear, 
the ground of obscurity, doubt, and controversy — 
most unnecessarily and perversely so. When I say 



132 

preversely, I do not mean in actual intention, but 
in fact. 

*' I hope this will be satisfactory. I hav^e striven 
to be brief, simple, and plain. 

** Affectionately, your brother, 

' * Chas. Louis Loos. 

Lexington, Ky., May 19, 1891." 

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament^ 
being Grim's Wilke's " Clavis Novi Testimenti," 
Translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph 
Thayer, D. D., says: 

' * Eis, a prep, governing the accusative and de- 
noting entrance into, or direction and limit into, 
to, towards, for, among. It is used, A. Properly, 
I. Of place, after verbs of going, coming, saihng, 
flying, falling, living, leading, carrying, throwing, 
sending, etc. ; (i) of a place entered, or of entrance 
into a place, into; and (^), it stands before nouns 
designating an open place, a hollow thing, or one 
in which an object can be hidden ; as, eis tan 
poHn, etc. * * ^ {ci) eis u\^dins 2iVi\o\\g [in among) 
before nouns comprising a multitude; as, eis tons 
leestas ; Luke 10: 36. * * * (2) If the surface 
only of the place is touched or occupied, eis, like 
the latin in may [often] be rendered on, upon, 
[sometimes] by unto (idioms vary), to mark the 
limit reached, or where one sets foot. Of this sort 
are eis to per an. Matt. 8: 18, etc. * * * (3) of 
motion (not into a place itself, but) into the vicinity 



THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 1 33 

of a place, where it may be rendered to near, to- 
wards * ''^ as, '' eis t. thalassan'' * * '^ eis polin.'' 
Mark 3 : 7, etc. * * ^ 11. of time; (i) It de- 
notes entrance into a period which is penetrated, 
as it were, i. e., duration, tJirougJi a time, * * : eis 
to7i aioojia, and the Hke * * ''"^ (2) of the time in 
which a thing is done ; because he who does or 
experiences a thing at any time is conceived of as, 
so to speak, entering into that time : * ^ ^ B, used 
metaphorically, eis I., retains the force of entering 
into any thing; (i) where one thing is said to be 
changed into another, or to be separated into parts, 
or where several persons or things are said to be 
collected or combined into one, etc." H< * * j have 
omitted some of the minor subdivisions and most 
of the references. It should be noted that Thayer 
defines eis by the words : * ' denoting entrance into, 
or direction and Hmit : into, to, towards, for, 
among." His next words are : ** It is used," etc. 
What follows is to show how the word eis is used, 
with citations, etc. 



Section II. 



Chapter I. 

John 3 : 5 : * ' Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he 
can not enter into the kingdom of God." In this 
passage I find what I suppose to be an allusion to 
the law of citizenship in the, then near at hand, 
Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Nicodemus came to 
Jesus by night and said: "Rabbi, v/e know that 
you are a teacher come from God, for no one can 
do these miracles that you do except God be with 
him." Having expressed his belief that Jesus was 
from God and that God was with him, Nicodemus 
proceeds, I suppose, to enquire of the great teacher 
the nature of the kingdom "near at hand," of 
which he had spoken, and to ask for the conditions 
on which he would be allowed to enter into it and 
to share its blessings. To this supposed enquiry 
Jesus replied: "Verily, verily, I say to you, Ex- 
cept one be born again he can not see the kingdom 
of God." This being born again Nicodemus did 
not understand. He evidently thought, as his re- 
ply shows, that Jesus required him to be re-born, 
(134) 



baptism; its designs. 135 

in the literal sense of the word. This, he con- 
ceived to be impossible. Especially did he think 
it strange that he should be required to be born 
again. He was, no doubt, honorably connected 
by birth, by virtue of which fact he then enjoyed 
senatorial honors. Why, then, should he be re- 
quired to be born again ? 

Supposing it to be settled that he must be born 
again, the second part of his question is answered 
as follows : ' * Except one be born of water and spirit 
he can not enter into the kingdom of God." As 
Jesus says that in the absence of these specified 
conditions one can not enter into the kingdom of 
God, I feel bound to think and to say that no one 
is able to enter into the kingdom of God who lacks 
them, or either of them. What, then, i. is it to 
be '* born of water and spirit" ; and, 2. What are 
the blessings assured to him who is in this king- 
dom? 

If this passage be an allusion to the law of 
naturalization into the kingdom of God, as I sup- 
pose it certainly is, then, since an allusion to a 
law must be explained or understood by the law 
itself, just as a figure is always to be understood 
by reference to the fact alluded to in the figure, 
so it follows that if there be any obscurity about 
this allusion it must all become plain by referring 
to the law. We have the law, as follows, in Matt. 
28: 19: "Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of 



136 baptism; its designs. 

all the nations, baptizing them into the name of 
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; " 
and, Mark 16: 16: "Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He 
that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ;" 
and Luke : 24 : 47 : * * Thus it is written that the 
Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead 
the third day ; and that repentance and remission 
of sins should be preached in his name among all 
the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." 

Assuming that what, and all that each one of 
these records has in it is true, which we must of 
course do, it follows that the law in question re- 
quired, and now requires, that the alien sinner 
should believe and repent and be baptized in order 
to be saved. Now, as the savedy and they only, 
are those who are to be admitted into the kingdom 
of God, it seems to follow that those and only 
those who comply with this law, are in the king- 
dom of God. But Jesus says that the one born 
of water and spirit is the only one who is or can be 
in the kingdom of God. So to be born of water 
and spirit is equal to believing and repenting and 
being baptized. 

It is known to all Greek scholars that the Greek 
word, here used and translated born, signifies to 
beget, as well. Therefore, in translating its more 
than one hundred occurrences in the New Testa- 
ment, if from the connection, it is seen that father- 



baptism; its designs. 137 

hood is the idea it is beget, generation, etc. , but 
if the idea be that of motherhood, born, etc., is 
the translation. Again, if the idea intended to be 
conveyed be, not to distinguish between these two 
conceptions but rather to declare the consumma- 
tion of both, the word should be rendered born ; 
for, to say of one, he is born, is to say implicitly 
that he has been begotten. 

In John 3: 5, the word. should be rendered bo'Tn, 
since the entire process or the consummation of 
all that the word signifies is declared. If the word 
should be employed of God, of the spirit of God, 
of an apostle of God^ or of the word of God, the 
translation should be beget, begotten, etc. 

What is the meaning of the phrase: **born of 
the spirit?" This question is answerd by this same 
apostle John in I. John 5 : i : '* Whosoever believ- 
eth that Jesus is the Christ is begotteji of God. 
To be begotten of God, and to be begotten by the 
spirit of God is, of course, the same thing. There- 
fore, the above quotation informs us that the spir- 
itual status of the one begotten of the Spirit is that 
he has believed, or he is a behever. Hence, to 
be begotten or born of the Spirit is to believe. 
Jesus says: "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." 

But we have seen that to be begotten of the 
Spirit is to believe. And we have said that to be 
saved is substantially or practically the equivalent 



138 baptism; its designs. 

of being in the kingdom of God. Now, in the law 
we have the term baptism, and in the allusion to 
the law, we have the phrase, "born of water." 
To what does this phrase in the allusion correspond 
in the law ? There is but one thing left to which 
it could allude, and that is baptism. To be born 
of water is, then, to be baptized. To sum up the 
correspondences between the allusion and the law, 
now pointed out, we have : 

To be begotten of the spirit is equal to believ- 
ing. 

To be born of water is equal to being baptized. 

To be in the kingdom of God is equal to being 
saved. 

As Jesus says: No one is able to enter into the 
kingdom of God, except he be born of water and 
spirit ; so, unless one believes and is baptized he 
can not enter into the kingdom of God. 

This conclusion is not even doubtful, provided 
the phrase, "born of water," is equivalent to, or 
signifies baptism. I think it is certain that Jesus 
meant by it, baptism, provided the word water is 
to be taken to signify, literally, water, for water is 
not present in any institution or ceremony of the 
Christian religion or church, except in baptism. 

The fact that a word may be employed in a fig- 
urative sense is not by any means to be taken as 
proof that this word is so employed in this passage. 
The presumption is always against a figurative 



baptism; its designs. 139 

sense. Therefore, he who asserts a figurative use 
of the word, in this passage, must prove it, else 
judgment must go against him. Can one prove it ? 
Only a very few persons, of thousands, have ever 
so affirmed ; and no one, even of these, so far as I 
have been able to find, has ever made a serious 
effort to pivve it. 

Suppose one should undertake to prove that the 
word water (Greek, hudor) in John 3 : 5, does 
not mean water, but something else, how must he 
proceed? I suppose he must say that the word 
does necessarily have its plain current sense— water 
— in this passage, unless the sense of the connec- 
tion or some fact or truth in the document of which 
it is a part does absolutely forbid it. But there is 
no such forbidding sense in the connection; nor is 
there any fact or truth in the document opposed 
to the current sense of the word. 

Is there any impossibility or incongruity in the 
idea of being born of water? I see none. Indeed, 
the birth of water is so like to a literal birth, that 
the use of the metaphor is most reasonable and 
striking. If one should be unable to see the like- 
ness or to justify the use of the figurative expres- 
sion, "born of water," I v/ould call his attention 
to the fact that the rising out of the grave is called, 
by the spirit of God, a birth. See Col. i: 18: 
"And he is the head of the body, the Church, 
who is a beginning, a first-born (ek ton nekron) 



I40 baptism; its designs. 

from among the dead." See, also, Rev. 1:5: 
" and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the 
first-born of the dead." The Greek word for born 
in these two quotations is tikto, which never sig- 
nifies to beget, but always, to give birth, or its 
equivalent. To be born of water is certainly as 
rational and defensible a statement as to be born 
of the grave. But the latter statement is gladly 
accepted and never by Christians denied ; so the 
former ought not to be denied. 

Assuming now, as I think I may, that the Greek 
word here signifies water, it follows that to be " born 
of water " is to be baptized. It also follows from 
the premises before us, that, unless one is bap- 
tized he can not enter into the kingdom of God. 
And as to enter into the kingdom of God is prac- 
tically the equivalent of the forgiveness of sins, 
it follows that baptism is a condition of remission 
of sins, or is for the remission of sins. 

But, for the purpose of, if possible, a still higher 
degree of assurance, I will cite the opinions of 
several persons and parties, viz. : ** Alford's Greek 
Testament," page 643, "There can be no doubt, 
on any honest interpretation of the words, that 
' born of water ' {Genne thanai ex hiidatos) refers to 
the token or outward sign of baptism — g ek pneu- 
matos to the thing signified, or inward grace of the 
Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two 
plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, 



baptism; its designs. 141 

by which the views of expositors have been 
warped. " 

Alford thinks there can be no doubt but that doc- 
trinal prejudices, by which expositors have been 
warped, explain how any one could interpret the 
"plain words, born of water," otherwise than as 
referring to water baptism. Any other interpreta- 
tion, he supposes, is hardly an honest one. When 
we come to consider the character and standing- 
of this witness, and the unequivocaF character and 
dogmatic style of his testimony, it is not easy to 
see how any greater assurance could be had from 
any uninspired testimony. 

Again, as proof that water baptism is to be un- 
derstood by the phrase, "born of water," in this 
verse, I read from Dr. Wall, " History of Infant 
Baptism," Vol. I., 43. I quote from the Oxford 
edition, University press, 1862: " And thirdly, be- 
cause we see by it that they understood that rule 
of our Savior, Except one be regenerated (or born 
again) of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God, of water baptism ; * ^ ^ And 
so did all the writers of these 400 years, not one 
man excepted." At this point Wall is commenting 
upon the writings of Justin Martyr, who wrote 
about the middle of the 2nd century. On the high 
authority of Dr. Wall we are assured that for 4CX) 
years of the first years of Christianity not one man 



142 BATTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

denied that "born of water," signified water bap- 
tism. 

On page 92, same vol., in commenting on the 
writings of Cyprian, and in regard to the words, 
born of water, Dr. Wall says: "There is not any 
one Christian writer of any antiquity, in any lan- 
guage, but what understands it of baptism. And 
if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an 
account how a person is born of water any more 
than born of wood." This is plain and stands as 
a historical statement unchallenged since the days 
of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, till, comparatively, 
but a fev/ years ago. There is, perhaps, no im- 
portant text of the scriptures in regard to which 
there has been so little dispute as in regard to the 
phrase, "born of water," in John 3: 5, until quite 
recently. And even since opposition to the plain 
sense of the passage has come up, it has been, as 
Dr. Wall says : on account of doctrinal prejudices 
of commentators, expositors, etc. It looks as 
though, in the light of such testimony, nothing 
further need be said. But to the testimony now 
before us on this point, I add as follows: Bengel 
says, "born of water" means baptism; Moses 
Stuart says it means baptism ; Albert Barnes says 
the same; John Wesley says it means baptism; 
Bloomfield says the same; The Methodist Disci- 
pline takes the same view ; the Presbyterian Con- 
fession of faith quotes it as signifying baptism, and 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 1 43 

SO does the Episcopal prayer-book. If the cita- 
tion of authorities may be allowed to establish, as 
correct, an interpretation of a scripture, the mean- 
ing of this passage is settled by the foregoing, es- 
pecially as it should, and may be truthfully added 
that this hst of illustrious names might be easily 
increased to many hundreds, with but few and fee- 
ble dissenters of very recent date. 

Assuming now, as may most certainly be done, 
that "born of water," means water baptism, and 
that it is an allusion to the baptism of the great 
commission, and that Nicodemus was enquiring 
for the conditions of admission into the kingdom, 
then near at hand, and of the enjoyment of the 
blessings thereof, a few concluding words will suffice 
to show the value of baptism, our objective point. 

Jesus says : * * Except one be born of water and 
spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God." 
That which stands between the sinner and the 
kingdom of God is the sins of the sinner; and 
those things which he must do before he can enter 
the kingdom of God are for the remission of his 
sins. 

Whatever things one must do in order to get 
into the kingdom of God are, practically, the thing.s 
he must do in order to the remission of his sins; 
or, whatever one must do to get into the kingdom 
of God, zs for the re7mssio7t of his sins. But the 
Savior says, and it innst be true, as before explained, 



144 baptism; its designs. 

that, except one be born of ^'dX^x — baptized — and 
born of the spirit (believes) he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God. Therefore, to be baptized 
is a condition of going into the kingdom of God. 
Hence, to be baptized is a condition of remission 
of sins, Q. E. D. 

Does one ask : Why, in this allusion, is the water 
(baptism) put before birth of the spirit (belief)? 
I suppose this to be the explanation : The whole 
matter of conversation was as to being in the king- 
dom of God. Looked at from the standpoint of 
one going towards the kingdom but who is not in 
it, faith (born of the spirit) is seen and met with 
before baptism (born of water) is. But contem- 
plating the matter from the standpoint of the king- 
dom and looking back, the order as thus seen and 
met, is reversed. This may be the true explana- 
tion of the facts in this case ; I am not sure that 
it is, however. 



Chapter II. 

Mark i6: 9-20: ''Now when he was risen early 
on the first day of the week, he appeared first to 
Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven 
devils. She went and told them that had been 
with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, 
when they heard that he was alive, and had been 
seen of her, disbeHeved. And after these things 
he was manifested in another form unto two of them, 
as they walked, on their way into the country. 
And they went away and told it unto the rest: 
neither beheved they them. And afterward he 
was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they 
sat at meat ; and he upbraided them with their 
unbelief and hardness of heart, because they be- 
lieved not them which had seen him after he was 
risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to the whole crea- 
tion. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved ; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 
And these signs shall follow them that beHeve: 
in my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall 
speak with new tongues ; they shall take up ser- 
pents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall 

(145) 



146 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

in no wise hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the 
sick, and they shall recover. So then the Lord 
Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was re- 
ceived up into heaven, and sat down at the right 
hand of God. And they went forth, and preached 
everywhere, the Lord working with them, and 
confirming the word by the signs that followed. 
Amen." 

I. It would not be right that I should use these 
verses as important evidence in support of my po- 
sition without submitting tha-t their genuineness is 
called in question by some critics of the highest 
authority. 

I find in the commentary on Mark 16: 9-20, 
by Prof McGarvey, of the Bible College, Ken- 
tucky University, what, with a few additional state- 
ments, will be sufficient for our purpose in this 
work. I quote as follows: ''Let it be first ob- 
served that it is not the authenticity of the passage 
by which is meant the historical correctness of its 
representations that is called in question, but only 
its genuineness as a part of Mark's original man- 
uscript. A few remarks on its authenticity, how- 
ever, will not, at this point, be out of place. 

All the historical statements of the passage are 
known to be true, independently of their occur- 
rence here, because they are found in the gospels 
or in Acts. Thus the statements concerning the 
appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, which 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 1 47 

occupy verses 9-11, are substantially verified by 
John and Luke. (See John 20: 1-18; Luke 8: 
2, and compare the notes on Mark 16 : 9-1 1.) The 
statement concerning his appearance to two disci- 
ples as they went into the country, is but a brief 
account of what is more fully described in Luke 
24: 13-35, ^^^ y^t it is so varied in expression as 
to show that it is not an abbreviation from Luke. 
(See the note on 16: 12, 13.) All the items of 
the appearance of Jesus to the eleven, described in 
verse 14, are substantiated by the statements in 
Luke 24: 36-43, and John 20: 19-23; and those 
pertaining to the commission and the ascension 
(15, 16, 19, 20), are confirmed by Luke's account 
of the latter (24: 36-51), and by Matthew's re- 
port of the former (28 : 19-20); while the promise 
concerning the signs that were to follow the be- 
lievers is substantially included in Matt. 28 .• 20, 
and John 14: 12, and is fully verified by the events 
recorded in Acts. 

Not only are the statements of the passage thus 
proved to be authentic, but the manner in which 
the details are handled, and the forms of expres- 
sion employed, show unmistakable marks of an 
original writer. His sources of information were 
independent of the narratives of Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and John, and yet they were correct. He 
must, then, have lived and written previous to the 
general circulation of the other gospels, and within 



148 baptism; its designs. 

the apostolic age. This is conceded by Alford^ 
who is one of the most confident writers in oppo- 
sition to the genuineness of the passage. He says : 
' ' The inference, therefore, seems to be that it is 
an authentic fragment placed as a completion of 
the gospel in very early times; by whom written, 
must, of course, remain wholly uncertain; but com- 
ing to us with very weighty sanction, and having 
strong claim-s on our reception and reverence." 
(Com. Mark, 16: 9, 20.) 

* * The authenticity of the passage being conceded, 
and the fact being apparent that it was written by 
some one possessed of independent and correct 
sources of information, the question of its genuine- 
ness might be waived without detracting from its 
authority or credibility ; for, a true piece of his- 
tory attached to Mark's book is not less valuable 
or authoritative because some other person than 
Mark may have been the author of it ; but we pro- 
ceed, for the sake of a thorough understanding of 
the facts in the case, to examine the evidence pi'o 
and con, and first those which are called external 
evidences : 

First, the manuscripts. The passage is omitted 
from a few of the manuscripts, and among these 
are the Vatican and Sinaitic, the two oldest and 
best manuscripts extant. ^^ * * Jerome, and some 
writers of the fourth century, are also quoted as 



baptism; its designs. 149 

affirming that the passage was wanting in most of 
the Greek copies of their day. 

On the other hand, the passage is found in nealy 
all of the other ancient manuscripts, including the 
Alexandrian, which stands next to the Vatican in 
accuracy. It was also cited by Irenaeus and Ta- 
tian of the second century, and by Hyppolytus 
and Dyonisius of Alexandria, of the third century, 
all of whom lived before the earliest existing man- 
uscript was written, and from one hundred to two 
hundred years earlier than Jerome. The words 
of Irenaeus show that it was not only a part of the 
book of Mark in his day, but that Mark was re- 
garded as its author. He says: ''But Mark, in 
the end of his gospel, says, * And the Lord Jesus, 
after that he had spoken to them, was received up 
into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.* 
From these writers, then, it appears that the pas- 
sage was a part of Mark's gospel at least as early 
as the second century. The preponderance of ev- 
idence from this source is in favor of the passage. 

Second, the ancient versions. The evidence from 
this source is altogether in favor of the passage ; 
for, all the ancient versions contain it, and thereby 
testify that it was in the Greek copies from 
which they were translated. If, at this time, the 
Greek copies did not generally contam it, it is, at 
least, a very remarkable circumstance that all the 
versions were made from those that did. Among 



150 baptism; its designs. 

these versious are the Peshito Syriac, the Old Italic, 
the Sahidic, and the Coptic, all of which were in 
existence earher than the Sinaitic and Vatican man- 
uscripts, and before the time of Jerome. 

Third, critical conjecture. The relative proba- 
bility of the passage having been written by Mark 
or added by a later hand, is next to be considered. 
Those who adopt the latter hypothesis think that 
the addition was made on account of the want of 
completeness apparent in closing the narrative with 
the eighth verse of this chapter. Any reader will 
be struck with this want of completeness, if he will 
read from the first to the eighth verse, and imag- 
ine that the narrative there closes. But while this 
consideration would account for the addition of the 
passage, it leaves unaccounted for the fact that 
Mark cut short his narrative so abruptly. The 
various conjectures advanced to account for this 
fact, such as the sudden death of Mark, or the 
sudden death of Peter, Mark's instructor; are so 
unsatisfactory that they serve only to show the 
strait in which the writers find themselves who 
adopt this hypothesis. On the other hand, if we 
suppose that the passage was written by Mark, its 
absence from some copies is at once accounted for 
by considering the many accidents by which the 
last leaf of a manuscript may be lost. Alford him- 
self recognizes the force of this consideration, and 
says, 'The most probable supposition is that the 



baptism; its designs. 151 

last leaf of the original gospel was torn away.' 
This remark of his is intended by him to account 
for the incompleteness which suggested the addi- 
tion of the passage in question, but we think it 
still more satisfactorily accounts for the absence of 
this passage from those manuscripts which have it 
not; for one manuscript with the last leaf torn 
away, or worn away, might be used as a copy, and 
might thus become the prolific mother of an im- 
mense brood of manuscripts lacking the portion 
lost. 

As regards the external evidence, then, we are 
constrained to adopt the conclusion of Dr. David- 
son, who very modestly says : ' On the whole, the 
external arguments in favor of the passage out- 
weigh those on the other side.' (Davidson's In- 
troduction.) 

We believe that, in this conclusion, all the critics 
concur, and that the ground of doubt which over- 
rules it, in the minds of some, is internal evidence 
furnished by words and phrases found in the pas- 
sage which are foreign, it is claimed, to Mark's 
style, and which, therefore, show the hand of an- 
other writer." 

Thus deposes Prof. McGarvey, who is one of 
the most competent, patient, and painstaking crit- 
ics known to me. Following this, and in the same 
article, the Professor examines the question, wheth- 
er the words and phrases of the passage do vn 



152 baptism; its designs. 

fact furnish internal evidence against the genuine- 
ness or authenticity of it. This part of his argu- 
ment is learned, lengthy, and somewhat difficult 
to be understood by the common reader. At the 
conclusion he says: "Our final conclusion is that 
the passage in question is authentic in all its de- 
tails, and there is no reason to doubt that it was 
written by the same hand which indicted the pre- 
ceding parts of this narrative. The objections which 
have been raised against it are better calculated to 
shake our confidence in Biblical Criticism than in 
the genuineness of this inestimable portion of the 
word of God." 

The most weighty and the latest objections to the 
genuineness of the passage in question are found in 
the "Introduction to New Testament, Appendix 
L , page 51," by Westcott and Hort. I quote from 
"The Text and the Canon," by Prof McGarvey, 
page 16: "There is no difficulty in supposing 
(i) that the true intended continuation of verses 
1-8 either was very early lost by the detachment 
of a leaf or was never written down ; and (2) that 
a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the words 
of the text before him, or to add words of his 
own, was willing to furnish the gospel with what 
seemed a worthy conclusion by incorporating with 
it, unchanged, a narrative of Christ's appearances 
after the resurrection, which he found in some 
secondary record then surviving from the preced- 



baptism; its designs. 153 

ing generation. If these suppositions are made, 
the whole tenor of the evidence becomes clear and 
harmonious. Every other view is, we believe, un- 
tenable. " It is herein seen that these distinguished 
critics deny that Mark is, directly, the author of 
the disputed passage. But they seem to allow that 
the statements of the passage are true and author- 
itative, therefore. Alford, who also denies that 
Mark is the real author, still asserts that the verses 
are an "authentic fragment." I have, herein, 
brought prominently forward the strongest objec- 
tions that can be marshalled against the passage, 
and yet it is seen that even these hold the opinion 
that the truth of the statements in question may 
not be, reasonably, denied. There is, I beheve, no 
valid reason to doubt that Mark 16: 9-20, is, in 
every important feature and particular, *' the word 
of God." 

I do not give names and quotations on the other 
side, for the reason that the number of the names, 
very distinguished, and the sum of their pertinent 
statements to our purpose, are too great. The 
critical examination of this question belongs else- 
where. I have aimed only to say what would 
make it quite apparent that I might, and should 
of right, use the lessons of this scripture in the 
course of my argument. 



Chapter III. 

Mark i6: i6. This passage reads: "One, hav- 
ing believed and having been baptized, shall be 
saved ; but one having not believed, shall be con- 
demned. " Or: "He that has believed and has 
been baptized, shall be saved ; but he that has be- 
lieved not shall be condemned." Each of these 
translations is true to the original. In the former, 
I give the i. aorist participle its true reprepresen- 
tative in English, as a participle ; in the latter, I 
give the participle its tense signification, but trans- 
late it as a finite verb, for which good authority 
gives permission. 

The meaning of the words of this passage, taken 

with the grammatical force of the construction, are 

an answer to the question : Who shall be saved ? 

The one who asks the question is supposed to be 

lost, to want to know what to do to be saved and 

to have some degree of confidence in the one to 

whom he puts the question. Hence, in the answer 

to the supposed question, the verb declaring the 

salvation of the enquirer should be, as it respects 

him, in the future tense; and so it is. But, from 

the standpoint of the man in a state of salvation, 
(154) 



baptism; its designs. 155 

the things that one must do in order to be saved 
must have already occurred; hence, the participles 
by which the things that were done are expressed, 
should be in the definite past tense, and so they 
are. These facts ought to appear in the transla- 
tion. The first thing in time and in importance 
when attempting to ascertain what one means is to 
find precisely what he says. What Jesus really 
said, is, I believe, fully and definitely expressed 
in the above ^ rendering ; and it must be allowed 
that he said just what he meant to say, and that 
he meant what he said. He said that the one who 
would be saved, must, in order to be saved, looked 
at from the salvation point, have believed and have 
been baptized. 

To be saved is, I presume, to be pardoned, or, 
to obtain remission of sins. This is so obviously 
true that I do not attempt to prove it. Now, 
substituting the phrase: '' ^'emission of sins,'' for 
''saved,'' the Savior's language would be: If one 
would obtain remission of sins he must believe and 
be baptized. Or, if one has remission of sins he 
must have believed and have been baptized. So, 
believing and being baptized, tied together by the 
conjunction, and, are therefore, in the great com- 
mission, declared to be in order to being saved or 
having remission of sins. Therefore, baptism is 
for "remission of sins," q. e. d. 

Whether one may be saved without doing these 



156 baptism; its designs. 

things, no heart, loyal to Jesus Christ, is very 
careful to know. I am not, herein, attempting to 
answer such a question. It is quite enough for us 
to know what the Divine requirement for salva- 
tion is and to do it, leaving in the hands of God, 
as we must, the solution of the question whether 
one may be saved, having omitted to believe and 
to be baptized, or either of them. 

In the latter part of the verse Jesus gives, not 
the conditions of salvation, but of condemnation. 
So, should one desire to know the condition of 
condemnation, he has it, plainly stated : He that 
believeth not shall be condemned. That is, as long 
as it is true of one that he has not believed, it is 
true that he shall be condemned. I see no reason 
for translating apisteusaii, disbelieves, or, having 
disbelieved. The word simply means, to not be- 
lieve. The translation, disbelieve, found in "the 
revision," and in some other excellent versions, I 
suppose, comes of the fact that the authors wished 
to leave the way open for the salvation of infants 
and certain other parties. But the way for the 
salvation of infants, etc., is quite wide open with- 
out this unnecessary strain being put upon the 
word of God. 

When God says that if one does not believe he 
shall be condemned. He is not talking to nor of 
an infant, nor of any one not accountable before 
the law. The translation which I make is offered 



baptism; its designs. 157 

solely on the ground of fidelity to the original and 
not at all because the old version or any transla- 
tion known to me is in the least out of harmony 
with the doctrine I am advocating. It has been 
said that the latter part of the verse does not say : 
"and is not baptized," shall be damned, and the 
supposed conclusion from this fact is that not be- 
ing baptized would not be a ground of condemna- 
tion ; and that it follows that baptism is not a con- 
dition of remission of sins. To say. in reply to 
this, any thing to one who does not care to reason 
would be labor lost ; to say very much to a thought- 
ful, anxious investigator for truth would be unnec- 
essary; for, one who does not believe is condemned 
already, no matter what else may or may not be 
true. Moreover, such an one can not be baptized 
if he would, and, if he be honest, he can not wish 
to be baptized, if he could be. Hence, in reason 
and according to the Bible, the case of any one 
who does not believe is, if responsible for the ex- 
ercise of faith, already closed. He, being an un- 
believer, no matter what baptism is for, is con- 
demned, and there is no reason for saying: "and 
is not baptized." 

But suppose Jesus had said : He that believ- 
eth not and is not baptized, shall be condemned. 
Well, in that case, if one should believe but should 
not be baptized, he, of course, could not be lost. 
Or, if one should believe not, but should be bap- 



158 baptism; its designs. 

tized, he could not be lost. Such one could not 
stay here always, and, as we have seen, that he 
can neither go to heaven nor to perdition, what is 
to become of him ? 

Those who make this, so called, criticism are, I 
fear, more inclined to dictate to the Divine Father 
than they are to be taught by him ; more disposed 
to have their own will than to pray, ** thy will be 
done, not mine." I do not believe that more than 
one in a thousand persons, who wish to be saved, 
who are not seeking a short or easy way to heaven, 
who are ready to deny self and allow that God shall 
be all in all, and who look at this great commission 
in its wonderful plainness with a single eye, would 
hesitate for a moment to accept, substantially, the 
view that I have here taken. 

As additional evidence that this record in Mark 
16 is an authentic deliverance from God, in sub- 
stance at least, if not in form ; and that its lesson 
is correctly stated in the foregoing, I cite and 
comment on : 

Matt. 28: 19: '*Go (or going), disciple all the 
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching 
them to observe all things whatever I have com- 
manded you." This translation will, I doubt not, 
be accepted as correct. 

I next enquire: What does the passage mean? 
As the meaning of a sentence is known by ascertain- 



baptism; its designs. 159 

ing the meaning of its words, let us enquire : What 
is the meaning of some of the leading words in 
this record of the commission? 

I. Disciple (^Matheteuo). The noun of the fam- 
ily is mathetes, a disciple or learner under a master 
or teacher. Mathetes is from MantJiano, to learn. 
The verb, matheteuo, to make disciples, has in it 
the idea of teaching — the means of disciplining 
and learning^ — and also the result of the teaching 
and learning — that is, becoming a pupil or disci- 
ple. 

In this commission the Lord charges the apos- 
tles to so operate upon *'the nations" as to bring 
as many as possible into the school of the Chri.st, 
the great Teacher. In doing this work, they, of 
course, were not to employ any force or influence 
other than what is in the instructions which they 
imparted, and the motives which they employed 
to induce the people of the nations to accept of 
the offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. 

Plainly, they were to teach and to persuaeie the 
people to become the pupils of Jesus. The old 
translation, in this place, is not a bad one. It 
tells a large part of what the apostles were to do 
in making disciples. They were to teach. The 
word teach does not, however, carry forward the 
thought, necessarily, so far as to result in, or to 
contemplate, the idea of the taught becoming pu- 
pils in the school ; whereas the word disciple does. 



i6o baptism; its designs. 

One may be taught the doctrine of Christ and not 
be or become what Jesus demanded. Therefore 
the word teach is inadequate to convey the idea 
that Jesus had. But the word disciple pointed to 
the full measure of apostolic duty in the premises 
and demanded of the nations what Jesus wished 
and what they needed. The word used looked to 
the consummation of the work commanded. So, 
according to Matthew, the apostles were expected, 
when disciplining persons, to teach, to convince 
them of the duty and necessity of, intelligently, 
entering into the school of Christ, and to persuade 
them, if possible, to do so. Those who heard the 
apostles would not, and were not expected to, be- 
come disciples unless they should believe. So the 
discipling of Matthew is the complement of the 
believing of Mark. Therefore, the record of Mark 
is true, whatever else may be said of it. 

2. Them. Matthew says: "Baptizing them.'' 
Autoiis, them, is a pronoun, and it seems to stand 
for the noun, nations (ethne). But it does not. 
The word ethne, nations, is neuter gender, whereas 
the pronoun {autous) them, is mascuHne gender. 
This fact indicates that the pronoun, them, does 
not, probably, stand for or represent, strictly, the 
word nations. It suggests that, though effort 
should be made by teaching, etc., to induce all 
the people of the nations to come to Christ or to 
enlist in his school, yet that not all were, neces- 



baptism; its designs. i6i 

sarily, to be baptized. If it had been designed 
that all to whom preaching was to be done were 
to be baptized, the pronoun showing who were to 
be baptized would have been of the same gender 
as the noun "nations." But this is not the case. 
From this it is clear that the ethnl^ nations, as such, 
were not to be baptized, but that such part of the 
people as might be represented by the pronoun 
them^ having some noun of the masculine gender 
as its antecedent, might be and should be. This 
noun is not expressed in the connection but it is 
plainly implied. It is present in sense. The com- 
mon sense of the passage is, that when the apostles 
preached to the people, if they should beUeve, or 
accept the teachings, or should be discipled, then 
they (the disciples) should be baptized. That is, 
the apostles were to, if possible, make disciples of 
all the nations and baptize them, not all the nations, 
but only those whom they had discipled. They 
were to baptize the disciples. 

The term, Mathetes, disciples, is, in Greek, 
masculine gender. To this term, present in sense, 
the pronoun them, refers, as its antecedent ; and 
with it the pronoun agrees in gender, according to 
a rule of grammar that so requires. 

For this conclusion I have the very best of au- 
thorities. I quote ' * Winer's Grammar of the Greek 
New Testament," section 24, page 141, 7th edition: 
**It is a peculiarity, common to the pronouns, 



1 62 baptism; its designs. 

whether personal, demonstrative, or relative, that 
they not infrequently take a different gender from 
that of the nouns to which they refer, regard be- 
ing had to the meaning of the noiifis, not to their 
grammatical sex. This is called constructio ad sen- 
sum, the meaning and not the grammatical gender 
of the word being mainly considered. It is used 
particularly when some animate object is denoted 
by a neuter or an abstract feminine noun. The 
pronoun is then made to agree grammatically with 
the object in question." 

After thus deposing, Winer proceeds to cite this 
particular passage in Matt. 28: 19, as a case in 
point, under his rule. Thus it appears that, as 
Mark baptizes believers, Matt, baptizes disciples. 

That disciples were to be baptized and not per- 
sons without mental and moral qualifications, may 
be inferred from the following: "As, therefore, 
the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that 
Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than 
John," etc. John 4: i. This is what the Phari- 
sees heard ; but as there is no intimation that what 
they had heard was untrue, it is highly probable 
that those who were being baptized by the apostles 
under the eye of Jesus were discipled and then 
baptized. It is also clear that the discipling was 
not done by baptizing, for the text expressly says 
that he made disciples and baptized them. 

It is safe to conclude that Mark's believers are 



baptism; its designs. 163 

the same as Matthew's disciples, and that the be- 
lieving and being baptized of Mark is the discip- 
Hng and baptizing of Matthew. 

"Into the name," etc. It is here stated that 
the one discipled, was, when baptized, brought 
'*into the name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Spirit." Our enquiry is, what does 
**into the name," mean? 

That eis signifies into^ and that it should be uni- 
formly so rendered wherever the sense will permit, 
is not now a debatable question. Among scholars 
whose reason goes before prejudice and wish, whose 
principle is, be slow, careful, when dealing in and 
with Divine things, I beheve I may say there is no 
such question. As I shall consider this Greek 
preposition movQ fully in another place, I shall say 
no more of it here. For the present I assume that 
^'eis to onoma, " the Greek of the phrase, signi- 
fies "into the name." 

Israel is said, I. Cor. 10: 2, to have been bap- 
tized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea. As 
a fact they were not, literally, in Moses, yet they 
were in him ; for, so the Divine record says. They 
were, then, in him, in a figurative sense. Moses' 
object, purpose, or business was to give the people 
salvation. God had sent, commissioned, and qual- 
ified him to do this for Israel. They listened to 
Moses; they decided to obey, to follow him; they 
did follow him to the Red Sea. Up to this time 



164 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

they were in their enemies' country ; they were 
not yet deHvered — saved. The steps thus far taken 
were necessary, were essential to, and they were 
in order to, their salvation from Egyptian bondage. 
But they were not yet saved. ■ Their enemies were 
yet alive, and they were pursuing them with great 
vengeance and power. They murmured against 
Moses. They were not yet fully committed "into 
Moses. " Moses coiiim.anded them to be baptized — 
to "go forward." They went into the sea, under 
the cloud. They came out of their baptism with 
gladness in their hearts and songs of salvation upon 
their lips. Ex. 15: i, et seq. They were now 
bound for the promised land, and were fully com- 
mitted to, and were dependent upon Moses, and 
their enemies were destroyed in the sea where 
they had just been baptized. Their dependence 
was now so entirely in Moses, and their baptism in 
the cloud and sea being the final act of shutting off 
their enemies from them forever and of devoting 
them to Moses entirely, they are, therefore, said 
to have been "baptized into Moses." They, lit- 
erally, were under the rule, guidance, or control 
of Moses. 

It seems, then, that when the committal of their 
destiny to Moses was complete, and their depend- 
ence for salvation was, absolutely, in him, the for- 
mal and consummating act which brought to them 
that end, is said to have put them into Moses. 



baptism; its designs. 165 

So, we are said to be baptized into Christ. Gal. 
3: 27; Rom. 6: 3. This, of course, signifies the 
taking of him as our only authority, rule, or guide, 
our only dependence for salvation. All of our 
faith and hope center in him. Now, as baptism 
consum^nated that relation we are said to be baptized 
into him. A baptized one is, figuratively, in Jesus 
Christ, and in the literal sense he is in his govern- 
ment, under his control or guidance, in his king- 
dom. Just as the blessings promised to Israel were 
conditioned upon their being in Moses, in the sense 
herein explained, so the blessings promised to us 
through Jesus Christ are conditioned upon our 
being in him. 

We are said to be baptized into the name of the 
Lord Jesus. Acts 8: 16, and 19: 5. To be bap- 
tized "into the name of the Lord Jesus," is, I 
doubt not, the same as to be baptized into Christ. 
In each case the literal fact is, we are actually in- 
ducted into the kingdom of God, and are made 
mete to be partakers of the inheritance of the 
Saints in light. It is expressly declared that God 
blesses us with all spiritual blessings, in heavenly 
places, in Christ. Gal. i: 3. And if one *'be iyi 
Christ \iQ is a new creation." II. Cor. 5: 17. It 
is not only shown in these passages how one comes 
into Christ, but it is also apparent what the char- 
acter of one in Christ is, and what his blessings 
are; viz.: "He is a new creature;" all spiritual 



1 66 baptism; its designs. 

blessings in heavenly places are his ; he has put on 
Christ ; he is in his death with the hope of being 
saved. Indeed, the line which separates between 
those '*z>2 Chist,'' and those not in Christ, is the 
line that divides the righteous from the wicked, 
the saved from the lost, the forgiven from those 
who are not forgiven. Of course, herein we are 
not speaking of the mere ceremony of baptism apart 
from the conditions of soul impHed in the already 
possessed faith unfeigned and repentance in the 
heart. For, when so considered, it is nothing; in- 
deed, it is not any thing. 

The attempt, if made, to have baptism by itself 
is an impertinence and vain. Yet, it is said, but 
said, of course, of those only who are ready — pre- 
pared — for the birth into the new life, that we are 
'•baptized into Christ," and thus "put on Christ." 

In the presence of such lessons from God, no 
one, it seems to me, who is seriously respectful and 
reverential, could speak lightly of being baptized, 
or could feel entirely comfortable while a cloud of 
doubt should hang over the question of fact whether 
one has been baptized or not. 

Rom. 6: 3, says: "Or, are you ignorant that 
we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were bap- 
tized into his death? " What does " baptized into 
his death" mean? In one case we are said to be 
baptized into Christ, then into Christ Jesus, then 
into the name of the Lord Jesus, now into his 



baptism; its designs. 167 

death. He "died for our sins, according to the 
scriptures." That is, in his death was opened, in 
the family of King David, " the fountain for sin," 
etc. It was the intention, no doubt, of the apostle 
to say that their baptism introduced them into the 
blessings, privileges, and honors of ''His death." 
Jesus' blood was ** shed for remission of sins." So, 
I repeat, baptized into his death signifies baptized 
into the benefits or blessings of his death. Among 
these blessings or benefits the chief is, remission 
of sins and such other blessings as ensue therefrom. 
Thus it seems to be certain that our baptism, when 
properly or scripturally fortified or qualified, brings 
us into a state of forgiveness of sins. Bu-t, 
Matthew says it brings us into the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 
Now, I conclude that the one who is brought 
^' into the name " is the one who is brought into 
the Christ, into the body of Christ, into the death 
of Christ ; is the one who has put on Christ, has 
reached the benefits of his sufferings and death, 
and has risen with him to walk in newness of life. 
To be baptized *' into the name,'' then, is to come 
into the possession and enjoyment of all spiritual 
blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord. I believe this 
conclusion is fairly reached from the facts of the 
Holy Scriptures. With its proper antecedents, bap- 
tism into the name, etc., is for coming into Christ, 
into the death of Christ; is for putting on Christ; 



1 68 baptism; its designs. 

it is for, or in order to remission of sins. This 
being true, Mark's record, i6: 9-20, is true or 
authentic ; for it is, though in different words, the 
same as Matthew's record. 

The Greek word, " ^72^;;^^, " signifies name. When 
John the Baptist was born his father said: His 
^'onoma'' (name) is John. Names are given to 
designate or distinguish persons. Often, in the 
Bible, names are given to persons to designate 
them in respect to their profession, office, purpose, 
or business in life. This is true of Jesus Christ. 
He was called Jesus because he should save his 
people from their sins. His purpose or business 
in this world was to seek and save the lost. To be 
baptized into the name of Jesus Christ, was and is 
to be put or brought into the possession and en- 
joyment of the blessings of his mission or business 
in this world. To come into the name of one is 
to become so related to him as to, legally, inherit 
the blessings of his business, office, or purpose. 
If, under his own proclamation of salvation, persons 
are baptized into the nmne of Jesus Christ, the Son, 
and the Bible says they are, it is only a figura- 
tive way of saying that they are, through baptism, 
brought into the enjoyment of the blessings of his 
mission, or caUing. Matthew's record of the great 
commission may, then, beyond doubt, be claimed 
as conclusively showing that Christian baptism is 
for remission of sins. 



baptism; its designs. 169 

jesus' mission. 

Jesus, the great philanthropist, came into our 
world to seek and to save the lost. Were sinners 
looked upon as hungering, starving, dying? His 
kingdom was the offered refuge, and its provisions 
the rem.edy for all the ills of the soul. In this 
kingdom is safety, plenty, health, hope, happiness, 
life. All things pertaining to life and GodHness 
are found in unfailing abundance in Christ Jesus. 

Salvation, as God contemplates it, is not confined 
to deliverance from sin. The blind, m heaven, 
see; the deaf hear; the dumb speak; the old have 
youth renewed like the eagles; all pains are gone; 
tears are wiped away ; partings are no more ; cry- 
ing is no more ; death is destroyed forever, is swal- 
lowed up in victory. Oh, the Saints shall cry, at 
the blessed consummation, — 

**0 death, where is thy sting; 
O death, where is thy victory?" 

As Jesus passed along to and fro, in his earth 
life, blessing kept even step with his going. The 
common people heard him, gladly. All said, Ne^^er 
did man speak as he. It was never so seen among 
men before. But his power and willingness to save 
from sin and give eternal life to men and women 
dead in trespasses and in sins, were the chief ob- 
jects of his personal mission in the world. That 
he should, through his own death, destroy death 



170 baptism; its designs. 

— the last enemy — and bring out of the grave life 
and immortality to light, was and is the hard les- 
son to learn. And yet when this lesson is once 
learned it appears to be one of the simplest things, 
one of the most reasonable things, imaginable, 
that the hard heart and stubborn will of the sinner 
should be subdued by love. That the sinner might 
not have any ground for doubting the immeasur- 
able greatness of God's love; that he might at 
once let the light and love of God into his soul, 
it is declared in the holy scriptures that God so 
loved the world that He gave His only begotten 
Son to die for us while we were yet sinners, in 
order that we, through his sufferings and death, 
might have life. 

This love of God was exhibited before the eyes 
of men as it was seen in the sufferings and death 
of Jesus. The good news of salvation is essentially 
in and is bound up with the facts of the gospel — 
the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. This gospel the apostles were given in 
charge to preach. When it is preached success- 
fully to a sinner he is brought to see that he is a 
sinner, to see how great a wrong sin against God 
is; he is brought to see something of the length 
and breadth and height and depth of the love of 
God which is made to shine into and weigh upon 
his soul until he cries in agony of his spirit: Lord, 
what wilt thou have me to do ? The answer to 



baptism; its designs. 171 

this question we have just learned from the great 
commission. 

This commission is the " law of the spirit of life 
in Christ Jesus," that "made me free from the law 
of sin and of death." As sin is the sum of all 
spiritual evils, so this Divine and merciful prescrip- 
tion for sin is the sum of all remedies for sin. I 
have, in a few of the preceding pages, considered 
this gospel commission. I have supposed its lan- 
guage to be simple and very direct. I can con- 
ceive of no language more intelligible, more cer- 
tainly unambiguous than that of the great com- 
mission. Keeping in mind that Jesus came to save 
those lost in sin, and that the road to this end lay 
along the way of Jesus' death, burial, and resur- 
rection (I. Cor. 15 : 1-5), it is not hard to under- 
stand him when he said to his apostles, "Go ye 
into all the world and preach the gospel to the 
whole creation, He that has believed and has been 
baptized shall be saved." Every unsophisticated 
mind, looking at or Hstening to these plain words, 
would say that Jesus meant just what he said ; 
meant that if one would be saved he should or 
must believe and be baptized. No question would, 
probably, arise in such a mind as to whether one 
might be saved though he should not do quite all 
that Jesus prescribed. Indeed, such an one, not 
purposing or wishing to fail, in the least, to do a/l 
that the Master called upon him to do, does not 



1/2 baptism; its designs. 

wish to know or to obtain an answer to that ques- 
tion. Duty is what he seeks, not a bargain. But 
plain as the language is, and improbable as it is 
that Jesus would, on so important a question as 
that of the salvation of the soul, use figurative or 
ambiguous language in giving us the law of life, 
it is true that good men do understand the com- 
mission as though it read: "He that has beheved 
shall be saved, and he should be baptized." Strange 
as such a view of this language is to me, I must not, 
I do not speak of it otherwise than as the heart 
conviction of good, true men. 

We have, then, the somewhat unusual case of 
very intelligent, educated, honest men who love 
God, differing as to the meaning of a scripture 
which certainly should be, and I think is as plain 
as any language in the word of God. We have 
tried to look carefully at the verbal, grammatical, 
and logical meaning and force of the language. 
The result is that Jesus seems to say that if one 
would be saved he should believe and (adding what 
Luke gives us in his record) repent and be baptized. 
As the object of giving this commission and of 
preaching the gospel was, and is, that all who be- 
lieve it and repent of sins and are baptized shall 
receive remission of sins, it is manifest that each 
of the conditions stated by the law-giver is, in its 
place and in a measure, in order to remission of 
sins. No one of these expressed conditions is for 



baptism; its designs. 173 

remission of sins in the sense that it introduces 
one into remission of sins by virtue of its, alone, 
operation. Indeed, we have often said that there 
is 710 virtue in faith, repentance, confession, prayer, 
baptism, or in any act or state of soul or body to 
gain or secure the forgiveness of sins, except as 
such act or state has been prescribed or required 
by the word of God. Even then it is not the duty 
done that forgives the sins. It is God that justifies. 
Though I am concerned in this discussion only with 
the relation established between baptism and re- 
mission of sins, I have referred to other conditions 
that I might make it the more clear that I do not 
regard this ordinance as saving by its own opera- 
tion or by itself; that there is no merit in the sin- 
ner nor in any act of his for which he may claim 
forgiveness. Salvation is by grace. It is God who 
forgives sins. It is manifest, however, that HE 
knows the characters to whom, and the conditions 
on which he will bestow this great blessing, and 
that we do not, except as he has revealed them to 
us. What we claim is that God, in his revelation, 
has provided that those who would be saved, should 
believe, repent, and be baptized, assuring them that 
thereupon {riot thei^efo}') he would forgive them. 

But, as before stated, good men, true to their 
convictions of duty, learned men and wise, do not 
understand thrs commission, which is the guide and 
authority for the preacher, and the measure and 



174 baptism; its designs. 

designation of the duties of the sinner, as I do. 
This being true, it would not seem respectful in 
me to affirm, dogmatically, that I am right and 
that others, equally or more learned and pious, are 
wrong. Allowing, then, as I do, that it is at least 
possible that I am wrong in my conclusion as to the 
lessons of this great commission, let us, desiring 
more light, seek it with an humble and patient spirit. 

Jesus gave the commission to the apostles who 
had been his disciples, or pupils in his school for 
three years and more, and who would, without the 
guidance of the Spirit, it would seem, understand 
Jesus' meaning. But, when to this it is added that 
these apostles were to tarry at Jerusalem till they 
should be endued with power from on high ; that 
the power did come as promised, on the pentecost; 
that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit 
and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance, it 
must be allowed that they understood, then, just 
what Jesus said and meant. 

It is safe to say that the apostles, guided in every 
word and step by the infallible Spirit, taught just 
what Jesus commissioned them to teach; that they 
did just what Jesus commissioned them to do; that 
they required of the sinner just what and all that 
Juses had bid them require; and that they promised 
the sinner just what the Master authorized them to 
promise him. In view of the commission under 
which they went forth, we would, reasonably, ex- 



baptism; its designs. 175 

pect that the apostles, in bringing sinners to sal- 
vation here, and to the hope of eternal life here- 
after, would preach to them the gospel, and that 
they would say, if sinners shall believe the gospel 
story, repent of their sins and be baptized they 
should be saved, and that all this is on the author- 
ity of Jesus Christ. This presumption arises log- 
ically out of the facts and accessories of the com- 
mission. 

I now propose to examine the ** praxeis aposto- 
lon'' — the doings of the apostles — in which I am 
sure we shall see the commission, in the hands of 
these Divinely guided and therefore, infallibly right, 
agents of God, unfolded and applied. So, by ob- 
serving what these ambassadors of the Christ taught 
and did, and required sinners to believe and do in 
order to be saved, we shall certainly come to un- 
derstand the instructions which Jesus gave to his 
apostles, and, through them, gave to the world, 
for the salvation of sinners. 

Acts 2: 37, 38. This is the ^xs'i praxis — act — 
of the apostles, under their commission. "The 
regeneration," here and now begins. The Church 
of Christ is now to be born. The apostles are 
"in Bank" — all together in one place — the power 
from on high has come upon them, and they be- 
gin the work of regeneration, speaking as the Spirit 
gave them utterance. 

The evidence of The Spirit's presence and agency 



1/6 baptism; its designs. 

in what took place on this pentecost is seen, in the 
sound heard ** as of the rushing of a mighty wind," 
in the "cloven tongues as of fire," and in the 
"speaking with tongues" which each of the apos- 
tles did as the Spirit gave them utterance. Under 
these inspiring and impressive circumstances the 
apostle Peter, full of the power of God, the wisdom 
of God and of the Spirit of God, that Jesus had 
said should guide the apostles into all truth, spoke. 
To him had been given the keys of the kingdom 
with which he is now about to open the door, that 
those prepared for it might enter into it. This was 
the first sermon preached under the great com- 
mission, and it was, of course, according to it. In 
view of the terms of his commission I would ex- 
pect him to: 

I. Preach the gospel. In doing this he must 
disabuse the minds of his hearers of any prejudices 
they might have against the apostles or against the 
cause which they were pleading, especially as to 
what they had just seen and heard. 2. He cites 
the prophecy of Joel, which they would, of course, 
and which many of them did, in fact, accept as of 
authority ; and he declared that what they then 
saw and heard was the fulfillment of said prophecy. 
3. He quoted David, saying, that David was a 
prophet, that as such he had foretold the resurrec- 
tion of the Christ. The apostle announced that 
God raised up Jesus, of which fact, he said, "we 



baptism; its designs. 177 

all are witnesses." So Peter relied, for proof, upon 
the prophecies of Joel, the prophecies of David, 
the testimony of the apostles, and upon such facts 
as the hearers themselves knew. Thus the apostle 
endeavored to "let all the house of Israel know, 
assuredly, that God had made him both Lord and 
Christ — this Jesus, whom ye crucified." The ar- 
gument was grand and logical as it was Divine and 
effectual. They heard that Jesus was to come ac- 
cording to the scriptures ; that he did come to save 
sinners ; that tJiey had, themselves, been the be- 
trayers and crucifiers of the innocent one who suf- 
fered that they might be saved ; that he died, was 
buried, and that God had raised him from the dead, 
exalted him to His own right hand, and made him 
both Lord and Christ. "Now, when they heard 
this they were pricked in their heart, and said to 
Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what 
shall we do?" When pricked in their heart they 
had believed ; for, so the expression signifies. They 
wished to know what they must do to be saved. 
It is obvious that, though they then believed, and 
that the facts, received in faith, had gone to their 
heart, and so they had what is sometimes called 
heartfelt faith, they did not regard themselves, as 
yet, saved. And the reply of Peter makes it too 
clear to allow of discussion that they were, indeed, 
not yet saved. The reason that they were not 
just then pardoned was, I suppose, because they 



1/8 baptism; its designs. 

had not yet come to the point where God could 
or had promised to forgive them. In the Hght of 
these facts it is clear that the point in their ques- 
tion was: what must we do to be saved? Peter 
was there, by the order of Jesus, for the express 
purpose of giving the desired information. He 
was there for the purpose of furnishing the infalli- 
bly correct answer to their question. What Peter 
did not say, in his answer, it is important in these 
days of irreverence for and departures from the 
word of God, to carefully note. It is not my 
purpose here, as it is not in the line of my argu- 
ment to give any attention to this negative view. 
In his answer to their question the apostle said : 
" Repent, and let each one of you be baptized on 
the name of Jesus Christ, for forgiveness of sins." 
The Greek of this quotation is as follows: ^'Meta^ 
noesate kai baptisthcto ekastos hinnon epi to onomati 
lesou Christou eis aphesin hmnartion.'' What the 
hearers had to do to be saved is here stated. They 
must repent and be baptized for, or in order to, 
or into, or unto, remission of sins. They had, as 
before stated, already believed. Therefore, Peter 
does not command them to believe ; that is, to do 
what they had already done; but he requires them 
to do only what they yet lacked of having done, 
that they might be saved. 

The commission under which he acted required 
him to say to sinners that they must believe and 



baptism; its designs. 179 

repent and be baptized. But as they had, on this 
occasion, ah'eady beheved, but had not repented, 
nor been baptized, Peter would, must, and did 
command them to repent and be baptized. 

The object which the hearers had in asking the 
question was that they might know what they 
must do to be saved. To be saved was to have 
their sins dismissed or sent away. To gain this 
end, now so intensely desired by them, Peter said 
that they must ''repent and be baptized." These 
were the things which they had to do — those who 
had believed — and these are all that they had to 
do "for remission of sins." In view of these ob- 
vious facts, what was the design of their baptism ? 
Can there be doubt on this point ? The unpreju- 
diced mind sees at once, sees clearly and does not 
doubt, that the repentance and the baptism were 
then and are now, **in order to remission of sins. " 
So it seems to me. Unless what the apostle said in 
answer to their question, was to be done in oi'der 
to 7rinission of sins, the reply which he made was 
not an answer to their question at all. But it must 
be supposed that the apostle did answer their ques- 
tion, that he did announce to them the things they 
must do to be forgiven. Therefore, as before, 
"baptism is for remission of sins." 

But, this reply of Peter's must, and must be 
understood to, rest on a satisfactory foundation, 
not upon the wisdom or the authority of men. 



l80 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

Hence, the apostle assures his hearers that in point- 
ing out their duty, in specifying the things they 
were to do, it all rested on the name of Jesus 
Christ. 

The phrase, *'on the name of Jesus Christ," in 
this passage, is for the purpose of declaring that 
the repentance and baptism were not human re- 
quirements or expedients, but that they rested, for 
validity and efficacy "on," as a foundation of as- 
surance, the "name of Jesus Christ. " 

The word name, in this case, I believe, stands 
for authority and also for efficacy. So that, what- 
ever of authority to require, or of power to guar- 
antee to or confer blessings upon faithful obedient 
ones, there is in Jesus, is embraced in the phrase 
"in the name." That is, he who believes, re- 
pents, and is baptized, and does all of these in the 
service of and in submission to Jesus Christ, with 
the whole heart, in every act and deed, is assured 
by all that the prevailing name of Jesus Christ sig- 
nifies, that he shall receive remission of sins. 

Let us now look at the words : ' * eis aphesin 
hamartion,'' for remission of sins. "Aphesin ha- 
martion," signify remission of sins; of this there 
is no doubt. Here there is no difference of opinion. 
If, now, we can determine the meaning of eis in the 
sentence, the purpose of repenting and of being 
baptized, as the apostle Peter required, becomes 
plain at once. 



baptism; its designs. i8i 

The preposition ''eis'' signifies //z/^. This is its 
current meaning in the Greek New Testament. In 
this sense it must be received in all places where 
found, unless there is something in the context 
that absolutely forbids it. Even when the current 
meaning of a word is not admissible, the departure 
from this sense must be as small as possible. Eis 
is sometimes translated — by, to, unto, towards, 
in, for, in order to, etc. — and I do not say that 
all such renderings are inadmissible. Where cir- 
cumstances so require, or necessity so compels, 
eis may be, probably, rendered into English by 
these words, or by most of them. But it should be 
noted, that, in all such cases, if there be such, and 
I think there are, the preposition has its real, full 
meanino^ shaded, obscured or Hmited. The trans- 
lation, in such cases, is not that oi just the word 
eis, but it is the meaning of m, modified by the 
context. 

Edward Robinson, D. D., in his lexicon of the 
Greek New Testament, says: ''eis, a preposition, 
governing only the accusative, with the primary 
idea of motion into any place or thing, and then 
also of motion or direction to, towards, npo7i, any 
place or object. The antithesis is expressed by 
ek, out of. Septuagint everywhere for 3, S, S^. See* 
Winer, § 53, «; Mathews, § 578 ; Kiihner, § 290-2 ; 
Buttman, §147." After a lengthy and learned treat- 
ment the distinguished lexicographer says : * * Some- 



1 82 baptism; its designs. 

times eis c. accus. is found where the natural con- 
struction would seem to require en c. dat ; as after 
verbs which imply neither motion nor direction, 
but simply rest in a place or state. In such cases 
the idea of a previous coming into that place or state 
is either actually expressed or is implied in the 
context." 

In so speaking, Dr. Robinson has only said what 
all lexicographers of note say. Besides his own 
valuable opinion, he gives us the names of Winer, 
Matthew, Kiihner, and Buttman, as sustaining him 
in it. 

W. E. Jelf, D. D., ''Grammar of New Testament 
Greek," vol. 2, p. 296, says of m.- "It expresses 
the same relations as en (in), except that it has the 
notion of a direction, whither, while en has the 
notion of rest, where. It is used to express the 
direction or motion of an action — into an object, 
or up to an object — into immediate contact with 
it, especially to express the reaching some definite 
point." 

The foregoing quite fully shows that the prep- 
osition eis, which governs only the accusative, has 
for its primary notion the idea of "motion into 
any place or thing;" and also, it may be, "of 
motion or direction to, towards, upon any place or 
object," as Dr. Robinson says. To support this 
conclusion he cites Winer, Matthew, Kiihner, and 
Buttman, To these I add the names of Jelf, Stuart, 



baptism; its designs. 183 

et al. That is, I believe, all lexical and grammat- 
ical authorities hold the same view. 

The purpose or objective point to be reached, 
or the end to be secured by the motion, which 
Dr. Robinson says is always expressed, or implied 
in the context, where eis is employed, is pointed 
out by the preposition eis. It takes up, as it were, 
the motion idea, expressed or implied, on the one 
hand, and points to the object or end which the 
movement is to reach, on the other. If it should 
be thought that the preposition is, in a few cases, 
so employed that the idea of motion is not quite 
apparent, still. Dr. Robinson thinks it is implied 
in the context. Even if this implication may not 
be allowed, still, all that can, by any means, be 
rationally cFaimed, is that an exception to the rnle 
is made out. Where there is no necessity for de- 
parture from the rule of this preposition, of course 
no departure ought to be made. Add to the fore- 
going the fact that eis points out the objective 
point of the movement, which is expressed in the 
passage, or is implied in the context, as being al- 
ways after the movement, and the conclusion is made 
as certam as any language can make any thing, 
that "repent and be baptized," are in order to 
** remission of sins," the object. 

Winer, in his Grammar, page 181, says: "Every 
case, as such, stands in a necessary connection, 
according to its nature, with the structure of the 



1 84 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

sentence in which it occurs." And again, he says, 
page 358: "The prepositions correspond to the 
cases ; hence each, according to its signification, 
is connected with a particular case ; viz., with that 
case whose primary meaning accords with the pri- 
mary meaning of the preposition." That is, a 
given case marks a definite relation, according to 
its nature, in a given sentence. The preposition 
of tJiis case takes the place of the case ; or, it is 
employed in addition to the case for the purpose 
of greater definiteness or emphasis. 

"Aphesin" — remission — is in the accusative 
case, which is the objective case, in English. The 
relation of, *' repent and be baptized," on the one 
hand, and remission of sins, on the other, is ex- 
pressed by the preposition eis. If the connection 
which eis makes in this passage is between ' * re- 
pent and be baptized," and "remission of sins," 
then and therefore, the repentance and the baptism 
are, and were declared by the Spirit of God to be 
for, or in order fo, remission of sins. 

To decide the question : What does eis connect 
in Acts 2 : 38, is of paramount importance in this 
investigation. We may safely refer the question 
for decision to the "ex cathedra " statements of 
scholars of all religious denominations, and of none. 

I. First in this list, in some respects, I cite the 
name of the late amiable, scholarly, pious Albert 
Barnes, a Presbyterian commentator of Philadel- 



baptism; its designs. 185 

phia. In answer to a letter written him by Brother 
J. B. Briney, he says: 

"Philadelphia, August i2>, 1870. 
''Rev. J. B. Briney: 

" My Dear Sir — I received your favor this morn- 
ing. My knowledge of Greek is very imperfect, 
and no great value should be attached to my opin- 
ion on a question of Greek criticism. But it seems 
to me the word eis, in the passage referred to 
(Acts 2 : 38), relates to the entire previous seyiteitce, 
* Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in 
the name of Jesus Christ ' — eis — unto, or in order 
tOy or with reference to — the remission of sins, etc. 
That is, the repentance and baptism both have ref- 
erence to the remission of sins ; or the entire pro- 
cess, so to speak, in the Divine arrangement for 
the remission of sins, embraces this, or this is the 
complete process appointed by God in cojznection 
with the pardon of sins. Whether a man can be 
saved without baptism is a question not connected 
with the exegesis of the passage; but the design 
of Peter, as I understand it, is to state what is the 
complete Divine arrangement in order to the for- 
giveness of sins. (Compare Mark 16: 16.) 

' * I regret that I have not a copy of the Syriac 
Bible, to answer your other question. I sold my 
library, and of the few books that I have I have 
no Syriac books among them. 

"I am, very truly, yours, Albert Barnes." 



I S6 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

Mr. Barnes here says that he understands the 
design of the apostle Peter " is to state what ts the 
complete Divine arrangement in order to the for- 
giveness of sins. " This is certainly correct. Then 
he says that "the repentance and baptism, both, 
have reference to the remission of sins." This is 
candid and scholarly talking by one of the truest 
and wisest men of our times. 

Dr. Hackett, a distinguished translator and au- 
thor, on page 69 of his commentary on Acts of 
Apostles, 2 : 38, says : " eis aphesin hamartion, in 
order to the forgiveness of sifis (Matt. 24: 28; Luke 
3 : 3) ; we connect, naturally, with both the pre- 
ceding verbs. This clause states the motive or 
object which should induce them to repent and be 
baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not 
one part of it to the exclusion of the other." Dr. 
Hackett was a Baptist, but here, at least, he writes 
simply as a scholar. 

Lange's commentary on Acts, page 53, says: 
"This, aphesis hamartion, is, unquestionably, con- 
nected more intimately and directly than the gift 
of the Holy Ghost, with the baptismal act ; the 
former, {aphesis) namely, is idicated by the word 
eis \_for the remission, etc.], as the immediate pur- 
pose of baptism, and as the purpose inseparably 
connected with it, while general terms are all that 
now succeed, viz.: 'And ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost,'" etc. 



1 87 

** History of the Christian Church," by PhiHp 
Schaff, D. D., page 6i, says: **He, at the same 
time, called upon his hearers to repent and be 
baptized, in the name of Jesus, as the founder and 
head of the Heavenly Kingdom, that even they, 
though they had crucified the Lord of Glory, might 
receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy 
Ghost, whose wonderful workings they saw in the 
disciples." Who Dr. Schaff is, no one, who is 
creditably well informed, needs to be told. The 
chairman, or president, of the committee on ''Re- 
vision," in America, needs no introduction here. 
His language is so full and direct and conclusive, 
that nothing more can be desired. In the fewest 
and simplest terms possible he tells us what the 
apostle Peter said, and what he meant by what he 
said, viz. : that Peter exhorted them to repent and 
be baptized, that they "might receive forgiveness 
of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost." 

** Theological Institutes," by Richard Watson, 
volume 2, page 624, says: "It is thus that we see 
how St. Peter preserves the correspondence be- 
tween the act of Noah in preparing the ark, as an 
act of faith, by which he was justified, and the act 
of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also, 
obviously, an act of faith, in order to the remission 
of sins, or the obtaining a good conscience before 
God." Watson was one of the most distinguished 
scholars and authors of the Methodist Church, 



ITS DESIGNS. 

This extract is taken from his comment on I. Peter 
3: 21. I make the quotation here for the reason 
that if being baptized is ** obviously an act of faith 
in order to the forgiveness of sins in I. Peter 3 : 
21, it is, probably, the same thing in Acts 2: 38. 

In the year 1876, Robert T. Mathews, of the 
Main Street Christian Church, Lexington, Ky., 
himself a fine Greek scholar, addressed letters of 
enquiry to a number of the most distinguished 
Professors of Greek in our great institutions of 
learning, as follows : 

" Will you be so kind as to give me your trans- 
lation of the preposition eis in Acts 2 : 38, and 
your opinion, as a Greek scholar, as to what gram- 
matical relation it expresses between the predicates 
of the verse and the phrase, aphesin hamartion? 
I shall be obliged for your answer in the light of 
scholarship, aside from all theological applications 
of the verse." 

Replies were received as follows : 

Prof. Tyler, of Amherst College, Massachusetts : 

"Yours of the 9th inst. is just received. I shall 
translate Acts 2: 38, literally thus: Repent ajid let 
every one of you be baptised m {or o?i) the name of 
fesiis Christ unto remission of sins. The preposition 
eis seems to denote the object and end of the two 
verbs which precede in the imperative. In other 
words, remission of sins is the object and end (or 
result) of repentance and baptism. The meaning 



baptism; its designs. 189 

may, perhaps, be more definitely and unequivo- 
cally expressed thus : Repent and let every one of 
you be baptized to the end that your sins may be 
forgiven. The passage does not imply that repent- 
ance and baptism stand in the same moral, religious, 
essential or formal relation to forgiveness any more 
than believing and being baptized stand in the same 
relation to being saved in Mark 16 : 16, or being born 
of water and the Spirit, stand in the same relation to 
entering into the kingdom of God, in John 3 : 5. 
The result is fully realized in each of these cases 
only when both the outward and the inward con- 
ditions are fulfilled. But that the outward condi- 
tion is less essential, is clearly indicated by its omis- 
sion in the negative and condemnatory part of 
Mark 16: 16, * He that believeth not shall be 
damned.' I do not know that I have met the pre- 
cise point and object of your inquiries. I have 
only touched the points of chief interest and im- 
portance as they present themselves to my own 
mind." 

Prof. N. C. Cameron, of Princeton College, N. J.: 
"The preposition eis, in Acts 2 : 38, is evidently 
used in its final sense, and the phrase is clearly 
connected with metanoesate kai baptistheti (repent 
and be baptized) as the end to which repentance 
and baptism in the name of Jesus, led. The con- 
viction of sin in the crucifixion of Jesus, who was 
both Lord and Christ, led the multitude to enquire 



190 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

of the apostles, ' What shall we do ? ' * Do, ' for 
what purpose ? Evidently, ' for the remission of 
sins, ' as shown in the answer of the apostle. They 
thought only of the sin against Christ, which, since 
his advent, as the essence of sin ('of sin because 
they believe not on me ') ; but the apostle makes 
the matter more general — ' remission of sins. ' The 
term aphesis (remission), except in the quotation 
from Isaiah (Luke 4: 18), has but one significa- 
tion in the New Testament. This, then, was the 
object contemplated, both in the question and the 
answer, and to which eis points. Trusting that 
this hasty note, which does not enter into the 
question of baptism, or of its relation to salvation, 
or even of the meaning of the expression, epi to 
onomati (*in the name') is a sufficient answer to 
your question, I remain, yours truly." 

Prof. Packard, of Yale College, Connecticut: 
"Your letter of inquiry as to the meaning of m 
in Acts 2 : 38, was handed to me this morning. 
I do not suppose it is possible to determine from 
classical or patristic usage a necessary meaning for 
such a word, which can be applied in any new 
case. It is so frequent a word, has so many vari- 
ous meanings, and expressing only relation, depends 
so entirely on the context for its determination, 
that each case must be decided mainly by itself. 
Here, it seems to be connected with both verbs. 
With Baptizo alone it has a special New Testament 



baptism; its designs. 191 

use, as to the meaning of which scholars are some- 
what divided. My own impression (to give it for 
what it is worth) is that I should translate it, if 
these words occurred in Plato, for instance, to the 
end of remission of sins. It would then make 
aphesin hamartion, an object aimed at, or a result 
attained by the acts denoted by the verbs. But 
this leads one, necessarily, into the domain of 
theology. I am sorry I can not give you a more 
definite answer." 

Prof. Foster, of Colby University, Maine : 

** Without a special examination of the passage 
in connection with others in which like expressions 
occur, I should say that the word here has the 
force of * unto, ' * in order to, ' * for the sake of, ' 
indicating a result to be attained, and that it con- 
nects the phrase aphesin hamartion with both the 
foregoing imperative verbs, alike grammatically 
considered, though, on other grounds, I shall say, 
specially with the first, since pardon is nowhere 
offered on condition of baptism alone, while it is 
on that of repentance. This is, briefly, my re- 
sponse to your enquiry, as I understand it." 

Prof. D'Ooge, of Ann Arbor University, Mich- 
igan: 

"In reply to your inquiry, I would say that, in 
my judgment, the preposition, eis, in the verse 
referred to, expresses the relation of aim or end 
in view, answering the question, eis ti (for what?) 



192 baptism; its designs. 

and to be translated by ' unto, ' * in order to, ' * for. ' 
This sense of ezs, as you doubtless know, is rec- 
ognized by Liddell and Scott for classical, by Wi- 
ner, for new Testament usage. I can not agree 
with those who ascribe to ezs nearly the same force 
in the phrase, 'baptize into the name,' but un- 
derstand it then to be used in the sense of ^in ref- 
erence to,' * in relation to.'" 

Prof. Flagg, of Cornell University, N. Y. : 

"In answer to your inquiry about the force of 

the preposition, ezs, in the passage of the New 

Testament, to which you refer (Acts 2 : 38), I 

should say that it denoted intention or purpose, 

* with a view to, ' much as if it had been written, 

* so as to obtain remission of sins. ' I speak, how- 
ever, wholly from the standpoint of classic Greek, 
not being familiar with the changes introduced by 
the Hellenistic. As to any theological bearings 
that the subject may have, I am wholly indiffer- 
ent." 

Prof. Proctor, of Dartmouth College, N. Y. : 
"It is my opinion that ets is to be connected 
with both predicates, and that it denotes an object 
or end in view. I am inclined to think that the 
phrase, ' in the name of Christ, ' though grammat- 
ically limiting only baptistheti, does, in thought, 
modify the connection of m, the ideas standing, 
logically, in the following order, viz. : Having 
been shown your ill behavior against the Messiah, 



baptism; its designs. 193 

put faith in (the name of) Christ ; on the basis of 
that faith, repent and (confess), be baptized, and 
then be forgiven: — eis, connecting aphesis, not 
with the two predicates, separately, but with the 
whole preceding part of the sentence. I have, 
first and last, given a good deal of attention to this 
point, but can not yet speak more confidently than 
I have done. If you enjoy this study as I do, I 
congratulate you most cordially. I establish few 
doctrines, as such, but the Divine Word is, more 
and more, a sustenance and eolace." 

Prof. Harkness, of Brown University, Rhode 
Island : 

*'In my opinion, etSy in Acts 2: 38, denotes 
purpose, and may be rendered *in order to,' or 
'for the purpose of receiving,' or, as in our Eng- 
lish version, 'for.' 'Eis aphesin hamartion' sug- 
gests the motive or object contemplated in the 
action of the two preceding verbs." 

In these opinions from four great colleges and 
four universities, in addition to what was said 
herein, before their introduction, we have, for sub- 
stance, all that can, or that need, be said on this 
passage. Authorities, of perhaps equal eminence, 
could be quoted to the same effect by hundreds. 
But really, the position held by these would not 
be made plainer or stronger by their introduction. 

In the light of what is now offered, it seems to 
me to be the conclusion of a calm, unprejudiced 



194 baptism; its designs. 

one, that baptism is '^for, or in order to, remis- 
sion of sins." 

The denial of this conclusion, by any considera- 
ble number of persons, is the unscholarly and il- 
logical product of, comparatively, very recent 
times. The great bulk of all learned and pious 
opinion of all parties in all ages, has been that, 
baptism is for remission of sins. Of course we are 
here, as everywhere and always, speaking only of 
Christian baptisniy of the proper baptism of a per- 
son properly qualified to be baptized. God never 
contemplated or provided for the baptism of any 
one not so qualified. 

If the conclusion here submitted should be ac- 
cepted, as it must be unless language be a cheat 
and a fraud ; unless language be to conceal rather 
than to reveal ideas, it is a most pleasing thought 
that, I. It is the deliverance of men infallibly guided 
by the Spirit of God into truth ; and 2. It is in 
strict harmony, as we know it must be, with the 
great commission given to these inspired apostles 
on the eve of Jesus' ascension. In the commis- 
sion we have the gospel that was to be preached 
and the commandments, promises, and threaten- 
ings, stated in words ; here, we have the same 
things translated into deeds by the Holy Spirit, 
acting through the apostles. In the light of these 
facts and circumstances it seems to me to be nearly 
impossible to fail to understand correctly. 



baptism; its designs. 195 

Acts 22: 16. "And now why delay? arise and 
have thyself baptized and thy sins washed away, 
having called upon his name." 

Here we have an account of the conversion of 
Saul of Tarsus. When on his way from Jerusa- 
lem to Damascus he was arrested and called, by 
the Lord Jesus, to account for his sinful and mur- 
derous course of life. Many years after his con- 
version, and when speaking as an apostle, he said 
of himself that he was at this time the chief of 
sinners. So, when Jesus began to speak to him, 
*'in the way," he had not yet been pardoned. 
Jesus asked: "Why persecutest thou me? " Saul 
repHed: "Who are you, Lord?" And he said: 
' ' I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecut- 
est. " Saul is at once satisfied that what he was 
hearing was true, and hence he enquired : " What 
shall I -do. Lord?" Jesus repHed : "Arise and 
go into Damascus ; and there it shall be told thee 
of all the things which are appointed for thee to 
do." He went to Damascus, as ordered, and the 
Lord sent Ananias to him to tell him what was 
appointed for him to do. The first thing said to 
Saul was, ' ' Receive thy sight. And in that very 
hour I looked upon him." Then Ananias deliv- 
ered God's further message to Saul, saying that 
God had determined that he should know his will, 
that he should see him and hear a word or mes- 
sage from his mouth. Then he is commanded to 



196 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

*' Arise and have himself baptized and his sins 
washed away," etc. 

Up to this time Saul's sins had not been for- 
given. True, he had heard and seen the Lord 
Jesus ; he had been struck blind ; something, as 
scales, had fallen from his eyes, yet he was a 
sinner. As yet there is no intimation or sugges- 
tion in the record that he had been pardoned, or 
that he thought he had received remission of sins. 
He was a believer, a penitent, and a praying man. 
He had asked what the Lord would have him to 
do and he was anxious to learn what his duty 
was and was ready to do it. The Lord had said 
to him that at Damascus it should be told him 
what he must do. He is now at Damascus, ready 
to hear and to do his duty. Ananias was sent 
to tell him what he must do, and his lesson is in 
the above quotation: "Arise and have thyself 
baptized and thy sins washed away." That his 
sins were not yet remitted is made certain by the 
language: "Arise" * * * " and thy sins washed 
away." This baptism of Saul was, then, to "wash 
away thy sins." There are but two possible views 
of this language : one is that his baptism was for 
remission of his sins, as a sinner; the other is that 
it was for the remission of his sins, committed after 
he became a Christian. This latter view can not 
be true. The scriptures do nowhere teach and no 
persons or parties in all the history of the Church 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 1 97 

have ever held, so far as I know, that baptism is 
for remission of the sins of persons which they 
committed after they had become Christians. This 
position being wholly untenable, the only other 
one which may be possibly conceived is: Baptism 
is for the remission of the sins of " the sinner.'' 

If this be so, then this passage is in harmony 
with the commission where, in reference to the 
sinner, it is said : * ' He that has believed and has 
been baptized shall be saved," or pardoned, and 
with Acts 2 : 38, where it is said to those who were 
already beUevers: "Repent, and let each one of 
you be baptized, on the name of Jesus Christ, for 
remission of sins." It is certain that Saul's sins 
were not remitted before his baptism. The language 
of this passage can not be made to harmonize with 
the hypothesis that they were. After being bap- 
tized his past sins are not heard of against him any 
more. That is, they were remitted when he was 
baptized. 

The question : In what sense was he pardoned 
when he was baptized? is hardly important here, 
for he was not pardoned, in any sense, so far as 
the record shows, till he was baptized. The record 
shows that he was then forgiven. The record does 
not give the slightest intimation, even, that the 
sins of his, till then, past life were not then remit- 
ted, or that they ever came up against him after 
this. 



198 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

In view of the, apparently at least, unequivocal 
and plain language of the verse, and of its treat- 
ment in the last few pages, baptism is shown to 
be for remission of sins. 

Let us now see what, in part, the learned and 
pious have regarded as certainly the lesson of this 
passage, as it respects Christian baptism. 

Lange, Acts 22: 16, page 400-401: "Baptism 
a means of grace. It confers purification from 
sins, the forgiveness of sins. The invocation of 
the name of Jesus essentially belonged to it, as a 
confession of the Redeemer and a prayer for His 
atoning and justifying grace. \_' Apolotisai tas 
hamartias sou. Let thyself be baptized, and (there- 
by) wash off thy sins. Here, too, baptism is the 
medium through which the forgiveness of sins 
committed during the pre-Christian life is obtained. 
Comp. ch. 2: 38, and I. Cor. 6: 11." (Meyer, 
ad. ver. 16). Tr.] 

Bloomfield on Acts 22: 16: *'Anastas Baptisai. 
So supra 2: 38. Baptisthcto — eis aphesin Jiajnar- 
tidn, reference being made, in each passage, to the 
method appointed by Christ for remitting the sins 
of those who rightly receive this sacrament." 

Wesley on Acts 22: 16: *' Baptism administered 
to real penitents is both a means and seal of par- 
don. Nor did God ordinarily in the primitive 
church bestow this on any, unless through these 
means." 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 1 99 

Murdock, in his translation of this passage from 
the Syriac, says: **To be cleansed from thy sins." 

Hackett, Com't. on Acts 22: 16; '' Aiiastas 
stands opposed to melleis, i. e., without delay ; see 
on 9, 18—. Baptisai, be baptized, or, with a stricter 
adherence to the form, have thyself baptized (De 
Wet.) One of the uses of the middle is to ex- 
press an act which a person procures another to 
perform for him. * * * This is the only instance 
in which the verb occurs in this voice, with refer- 
ence to Christian baptism. In the analogous case 
(I. Cor. 10, 2) the reading is: ebaptisanto or ebap- 
tisthesan. Kai apolousai tas hamartias sou, and 
wash (bathe) away thy sins. This clause states a 
result of the baptism in language derived from the 
nature of that ordinance. It answers to eis aphesin 
hamartion in 2: 38, i. e., submit to the rite in 
order to be forgiven." 

John Calvin, in ** Christian Institutes," vol. 2, 
chap. 15. Ananias, therefore, only intended to 
say to Paul: **That thou mayest be assured that 
thy sins are forgiven, be baptized. For, in bap- 
tism, the Lord promises remission of sins ; receive 
this and be secure." 

Calvin saw very plainly what we all see now, 
that if he presented baptism as "for remission of 
sins," men were liable to attach to the water of 
baptism, to the baptist, to the formulary of words 
used on the occasion or to the whole event, an 



200 BATTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

undue importance, as though the virtue was in 
some one or more of these things. He took much 
pains to leave no ground for such mistake in any 
thing which he wrote. In his great anxiety to 
keep the sinner's eye fixed upon the real ground 
of his forgiveness — the blood of Jesus — he some- 
times used language which seems to be somewhat 
inconsistent with his general teaching on his theme. 
This he saw. He says: **It is not my design, 
however, to diminish the efficacy of baptism, but 
the substance and truth accompany the sign, as 
God works by external means." Again he says: 
' ' For this analogy or similitude is a most certain 
rule of sacraments ; that in corporeal things we 
(Contemplate spiritual things just as if they were 
placed before our eyes, as it has pleased God to 
represent them to us by such figures ; not that 
such blessings are bound or enclosed in the sacra- 
ment, or that it has the power to impart them to 
us ; but only because it is a sign by which the Lord 
testifies his will, that he is determined to give us 
all these things ; nor does it merely feed our eyes 
with a bare prospect of the symbols, but conducts 
us at the same time to the thing signified, and 
efficaciously accomplishes that which it represents." 
In these extracts Calvin has used some words which 
we would not, now, employ to express what was 
clearly his meaning. At another place I shall have 
occasion to introduce this author again. 



Chapter IV. 

Rome. 6 : 3-7 : "Or are ye ignorant that all we 
who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized 
into his death? We were buried therefore with 
him through baptism into death : that like as Christ 
was raised from the dead through the glory of the 
Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 
For if we have become united with Jiim by the 
likeness of his death, we shall be also by the like- 
ness of his resurrection ; knowing this, that our old 
man was crucified with hmZy that the body of sin 
might be done away, that so we should no longer 
be in bondage to sin ; for he that hath died is 
justified from sin." 

The reason for the language of the verses cited 
is found in the previous chapter. 

Rom. 5 : 12, 13, Paul says: "On this account, 
as through one man sin entered into the world and 
through sin death, even in this way did it pass on 
to all men, because all sinned; for until law came 
sin was in the world, but sin is not reckoned when 
there is no law." (I quote from 'Two Fold.') 
Again, verses 20-21 — *' But law stepped in that 
trespass should be enhanced ; where, however, sin 

was enhanced grace still more surpassed ; that as sin 

( 201 ) 



202 baptism; its designs. 

had reigned by death, so grace, too, should reign 
through righteousness to everlasting life through 
Jesus Christ our Lord." 

From this chapter, parts of which I have quoted, 
it appears that where there is no law there is no 
transgression, and, therefore, no sin ; or, at least, 
there is no account made out against the evil doer. 
So, law entered to make men see themselves as 
they really were. 

Paul's lesson is, that law was given that, in its 
light, men might see the real character of their 
conduct, and might know how to so change as to 
be in line with the will of God. 

But, says the Apostle, '* Where sin abounded 
grace abounded more exceedingly." Well, says 
a supposed disputant : ' ' What shall we say, then ? " 
"Is it the correct inference from this fact, that we 
should continue in sin that grace may abound?" 
Paul answered: "By no means." He then refers 
to the experience of the objector, saying: "We 
who died to sin, how shall we live any longer 
therein?" It was quite obvious enough that one 
who was dead to sin, could not, at the same time, 
be alive to it, or consistently live in it. 

He, then, refers to the event and to the logic 
of their baptism in proof that one could not, con- 
sistently, commit sin nor live in it in order that 
grace might abound. He says: "Or, are you 
ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 2O3 

Jesus were baptized into his death?" The bap- 
tism brought them into the death of Jesus Christ. 
This he was supposed to know. Moreover, the 
apostle rather sharply reflects upon him for, ap- 
parently, not knowing this patent fact. So, if he 
had died to sin and had been baptized into Jesus' 
death, which had occurred for the very purpose of 
destroying sin (Heb. 9: 26) it was clear that one 
ought not to suppose it to be right to sin that 
grace might abound. The apostle further says: 
"We were buried with him, therefore, through the 
baptism into the death, that like as Christ was 
raised from the dead through the glory of the 
Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. " 
That is, the order of conversion was, people died 
to sin, were baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, 
in which case they were ** buried with him," and, 
as he was raised up, having been raised up in a 
likeness of his resurrection, the baptized were, scrip- 
turally and logically expected to walk in newness 
of life. All of these facts, combined as the apos- 
tle combined them, made the conclusion irresisti- 
ble that to commit or live in sin is not the way to 
make grace abound. This I suppose to be the 
lesson of this part of the Roman letter. 

But it is manifest that Paul used some facts 
which were well known to his readers and were 
pertinent to his purpose in his argumen':, that have 
a decisive bearing on our main subject. For ex- 



204 baptism; its designs. 

ample, he says they **died to sin." This signi- 
fies that they ceased from sinning, or from loving 
to sin, as one does who is literally dead. Then, 
being dead, he says, they were buried into the 
death of Christ, in their baptism. This signifies 
that, in their baptism, they were brought into the 
possession of the benefits or blessings to men, of 
his death. The baptized were buried and raised up, 
after a likeness of the literal burial and resurrection 
of Jesus, "to walk" (live) "in newness of life." 
With the rising up from their baptism they were 
logically, and we are now scripturally, expected 
and required to hve new lives. 

Let it be noted that the baptized were all buried 
'^with him,'' were "baptized into Jesus Christ,'' 
etc. Their baptism was, then, the event upon 
which, and the time when they came to be ''with 
him," (sun auto) when they came "to be in Christ 
Jesus." Paul says, in the 8th chapter, a part of 
this same argument, that there is "now no con- 
demnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." That 
is, those in Christ Jesus are pardoned, but those 
out of him are not. Now, since baptism is the 
event that marks the Jact, and the time, when one 
comes into Christ Jesus, it follows that it is a con- 
dition of remission of sins; or, that it is for remis" 
sion of sins. 

Does one say: ''But bejore their baptism they 
died to sin." Certainly they did. " Did they not 



baptism; its designs. 205 

then cease from sinning in fact, and also cease from 
loving to sin ? " Of course they did. "Were they 
not then pardoned ? " If ceasing to love and prac- 
tice sin, or, having the heart changed, were the 
forgiveness of sins, or were it the God prescribed 
last condition of it, then, of course, when one's 
heart is changed he is forgiven. But, to be cured 
of the love and practice of sin is not to forgive 
sins, nor is it the final condition thereof One 
may stop loving and practicing sin and still be a 
sinner. Though one in jail for murder should 
cease, m his heart, to be a murderer, yet he is 
guilty, the penalty still hangs over him and he 
must suffer the penalty of his sins unless he should 
be pardoned. It was shown in a former section 
that when the pardon of sin is spoken of in the 
Bible, the mere love or practice of sin, is never 
meant. It is the guilt and penalty of sin that may 
be and that are forgiven. When one has believed 
with all his heart on the Lord Jesus he has ceased 
to love sin, but he is not then a child of God, a 
Christian. He, then, has the right, privilege, or 
power to become a child of God. So the word of 
God distinctly states. John i: 12, et al. 

Verse fifth, of this chapter, is significant. In 
this verse the apostle says: ** For, if we have be- 
come united with him by a likeness of his death, 
we shall be also by ^. likeness of his resurrection ; 
knowing this, that our old man was crucified with 



206 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

him that the body of sin might be done away, that 
so we should no longer be in bondage to sin." 

We were told at verse four that our being bap- 
tized exhibits a likeness to his burial and resurrec- 
tion. In this verse we are told that, in this likeness 
— in baptism — we are united with him, w^e are 
joined to him firmly, as though grown together with 
him. So, again, baptism seems to mark the time 
when we are, in fact, one with Christ, as we know 
that it, instrumentally, puts us into Jesus Christ. 
So, to me, the apostle seems plainly to teach. If 
this be so, then *' Baptism is for remission of sins." 

At verse 17, Paul, in answer to the question: 
"Shall we sin because we are not under law but 
under grace? " says: "But thanks be to God that 
whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obe- 
dient from the heart to that form of teaching 
whereunto ye were delivered ; and being made free 
from sin ye became servants of righteousness." 
In fact, the teachings that stood forth as a mould 
or pattern, into which the prepared people were 
put, or, as it were, cast, were: " How that Christ 
died for our sins according to the scriptures ; 
and that he was buried; and that he hath been 
raised on the third day, according to the scrip- 
tures," etc. The effect of this teaching was to 
cause death to sin, or to change the heart. Then, 
those who had died were buried by or through 
baptism into the death of Jesus, and were raised 



baptism; its designs. 207 

up to walk in newness of life. Thus the converted 
re-enacted the whole gospel mould, in going through 
a Hkeness to it. Into this pattern of the teachings 
the people were put or delivered and were then 
made free from sin. Baptism was one of these 
teachings, was a part, at least, of the pattern of 
the teachings. And as one, then, was not made 
free from sin till he had obeyed from the heart the 
mould of the teachings into which he was delivered, 
it follows that baptism was for remission of sins, 
and that it is now "for remission of sins." I feel 
sure that the entire, splendid argument of this part 
of the great epistle is pointless if this view may 
not be accepted. 

In "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," by 
Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, p. 169, note, it is 
said of verse four of this chapter, * ' This passage 
can not be understood unless it be borne in mind 
that the primitive baptism was by immersion. Also, 
see vol. I., page 439." This passage, from so dis- 
tinguished a source, I plead as a somewhat justi- 
fication for the remark immediately before the 
quotation. 

Gal. 3: 26, 27: "For ye are all sons of God 
through the faith in Christ Jesus. For as many 
of you as were baptized into Clirist did put on 
Christ." 

The theme before the apostle's mind in this pas- 
sage is: People become sons of God through "the 



2o8 baptism; its designs. 

faith in Christ Jesus, not by law." That is, i. In 
fact, we become sons of God ''in Christ Jesus,'" not 
out of him ; and, 2. As to the mode of the fact, 
or the manner of becoming sons of God, he says : 
it is " through The Faith. " The phrase : The faith, 
here signifies the gospel way of salvation, and there 
is no other way. There are a great many places 
in the New Testament where this phrase occurs in 
this sense. Then the apostle states the time when 
they became sons of God, saying: " For, as many 
of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ." 
That is, they came into Christ when they were 
baptized ; and they became sons of God when they 
came into Christ. 

This apostle says, Eph. i : 7 : * ' In whom we 
have our redemption, through his blood, the for- 
giveness of our sins." Again, Col, i : 14, he says: 
"In whom we have our redemption, the forgive- 
ness of our sins." Whatever the phrase, "/>/ 
Christ,'' may mean, it is true that remission of sins 
takes place "in Christ," not out of him, and that 
we come into Christ by baptism. If the statements 
of the Word of God are to be regarded as conclu- 
sive, as the end of all controversy, then the two 
conclusions, as above stated in the express words 
of God, are true. Now, as baptism is a condition 
of our being "in Christ Jesus," and as being in 
Christ Jesus is a condition of remission of sins, it 
follows that baptism is a condition of remission of 



i 



baptism; its designs. 209 

sins, that is: Baptism is ''for remission of sins." 
q. e. d. 

Again, Jesus says that we are born of water, 
which is accomplished when we are baptized. See 
John 3:5. Of course no one is a son till he is 
born into the kingdom of God ; and as no one is 
born of water, that is, is born into God's family- 
till he is baptized, it follows that no one is a son 
of God, is in God's family, and that no one can 
inherit eternal life till he is baptized. If this be 
so, of course baptism is for remission of sins. But 
I prefer to tone down the sentiment of the last 
dozen or so lines to the following : I do not intend 
to be understood as saying that no one can possi- 
bly be saved unless he has been baptized. I as- 
sert only that the above is God's expressed way 
of the sinner's salvation. What God may do out- 
side of what He has said He will do, I do not know. 
It is an impertinence to wish to know, if with the 
wish there goes a desire or purpose to try some 
other way. God has taught and expressed him- 
self on the subject of the salvation of the sinner, 
on the theory that the sinner does not want nor 
need to know whether there is another way or not. 
A soul deeply and truly in love with God is not 
in search of another or easier way. He is certain 
to think that God has already given sinners the 
best and the easiest way possible. 

Eph. 5: 25, 26: "Husbands, love your wives, 



2IO baptism; its designs. 

as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself 
up for it ; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed 
it by the washing of water with the word," (or, 
having cleansed it by the laver of water, in a word 
— the gospel). Hrmia, rendered in the new ver- 
sion, ^^ the wordy'' and in some other versions, ''a 
word, signifies : a word, a teaching, a discourse, an 
appointment or ordinance, a requirement or a gos- 
pel message. In this verse, the passage, *'td 
loutro toil hiidatos en hreinati,'' I suppose refers 
to the bath or laver of water contemplated in the 
gospel where baptism is enjoined. The sense would, 
then, be that Christ cleansed the Church by means 
of the laver of water (baptism) provided for in the 
commission, which is Christ's ''hrema.'' 

That the laver mentioned here has reference to 
the baptismal laver will not, probably, be seriously 
denied or doubted. God's hrema, word, has no 
water in it except in the matter of baptism. Dr. 
Clark, Macknight, Wesley, Bengel, Stuart, the 
Methodist discipline (S), et al., all say that there 
is here an allusion to baptism. Dean Alford says : 
"The laver of the (baptismal) water." There is 
but little difference of opinion among scholars on 
this point, I believe. This being settled, we are 
ready to enquire for the bearing of the passage on 
our subject. 

After discussing the importance of living lives 
of purity and faithfulness to God, and after sundry 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 2 1 1 

specifications and illustrations, by means of which 
to make plain his lesson and to enforce it, he refers 
to the reciprocal duties and obligations of wives 
and husbands. 

He says they stand related to each other very 
much as do Christ and the Church. He says : 
"The husband is the head of the wife as Christ 
also is the head of the Church." Again, "as the 
Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also 
be to their husbands in every thing." Then the 
apostle says: "Husbands, love your wives, even 
as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself 
up for it; having cleansed it by," etc. 

Of this quotation, the distinguished and lamented 
Albert Barnes says: "In all this there is an allu- 
sion, doubtless, to the various methods of purifying 
and cleansing those who were about to be married 
and who were to be united to monarchs as their 
brides." * ^ * '*As such a virgin was to be puri- 
fied and prepared for her husband by washing and 
by anointing, so the Church is to be prepared for 
Christ." There is this difference between the two 
cases. In the one case physical cleansing and 
purity are contemplated ; whereas, in the other, 
the cleansing is from sin. The latter cleansing, 
the apostle says, as we have before seen, is accom- 
plished "by the washing of water in a word." If 
one should be troubled over the manner in which 
the apostle puts his argument, it is not I that 



212 baptism; its designs. 

should be blamed. I am not attempting herein to- 
suggest to the Lord how he ought to . put, and 
guard, and explain, his argument, but only, if pos- 
sible, to learn and set forth what God has said. 
Now, if this **laver of water" alludes to baptism, 
as it certainly does ; and if the cleansing from sin 
was by means of the laver of water, as the text 
says it was, no matter in what se^tse, it follows that 
baptism was, and, therefore, now is, for remission 
of sins. 

Titus 3 : 4-5 : " But, when the kindness of God, 
our Savior, and his love towards man, appeared, 
not by works done in righteousness, which we did 
ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, 
through the washing of regeneration and renewing 
of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us 
richly through Jesus Christ our Savior." 

The apostle, in this connection, in discussing or 
mentioning a number of questions, has occasion to 
refer to the fact that he and Titus and their Chris- 
tian brethren at that time, had been foolish, worldly, 
deceitful, wicked, etc. He then gives some account 
of the fact that they were saved, and how they had 
been saved. In regard to the second point — hozu 
they had been saved — he says: i. It was "not 
by works done in righteousness, which we did our- 
selves;" 2. "but according to his mercy he saved 
us through the washing of regeneration and renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost." 



I 



ITS DESIGNS. 213 

**Dia loutrou paliggenesiaSy'' — through the, or a, 
washing of regeneration. What is the meaning 
of this language? No attempt at explaining it 
must contradict what the apostle says. He says 
that they were saved through certain named con- 
ditions. This must not be contradicted by one in 
his attempt to explain the language. Explanation 
and contradiction are not compatible terms. *'Lou- 
trou " is one of the conditions through ivhich, Paul 
says, they had been saved. Not that the loutrou 
saved them, but that they were saved through it, 
is what the apostle affirms. As they had been 
saved through it they were not saved without it. 
So, it was for their salvation. 

This word signifies : bath, a washing, and, used 
metonymically, it signifies the water used in bath- 
ing and also the vessel containing the water. That 
it 7'efers to baptism is the almost universal opinion 
of scholars. To this effect I cite a few authors. 
The distinguished Alford says: ''loutrou, pal., the 
laver (Eph. 5 : 6, note) of (belonging to, setting 
forth) regeneration, i. e., the font representing the 
external portion of the sacrament of baptism and 
pledging the internal," etc. 

Barnes says: ** The word properly means, a bath; 
then water for bathing; then the act of bathing, 
washing, ablution. Passow 2^x6. Robinson. * * * 
The word here does not mean laver, or the vessel 
for washing in, which would be expressed by lou- 



214 baptism; its designs. 

teVy and this word can not be properly applied to 
the baptismal font. The word in itself would nat- 
urally be understood as referring to baptism." 

Bloomfield, in loco, says : * ' dia loutrou pal. 
Render by the laver of regeneration. The ancient 
expositors almost universally (see Chrys. i, 323), 
and all the most eminent modern commentators 
are agreed that by paligg.y is meant baptismal re- 
generation." 

Edward Robinson, Lex., says: "Loutron, abatk, 
place for bathing. * * * In New Testament, a 
washing, ablution, i. e.y the act, spoken of baptism, 
Eph. 5: 26, Tit. 3: 5." To these, if more names 
were needed, might be added nearly all respecta- 
ble commentators, ancient and modern. '* Lou- 
trou," I shall now, as I may reasonably assume, 
refers to Christian baptism in this verse. For some 
reason the apostle took care to say that the loti- 
tron, bath, in this case, was not just any bath that 
had been or might be practiced, but that it was 
the bath- of regeneration, or of the new birth. Jesus 
refers to it under the figure of a birth of water. 
John 3: 5. 

This bath is, therefore, not an ordinary one. It 
is not the regeneration itself, but it is the batJi, or 
the washing that belongs to it. This bath, or 
washing, is the baptism of the great commission, 
where it is said: *'The one, having believed and 
having been baptized, shall be saved." 



baptism; its designs. 215 

Paul, as we have shown, says in this place that 
God saved them through this washing of regener- 
ation, which is baptism. Therefore, * ' baptism is 
for remission of sins. '* The sense in which this is 
true is not the question before us now. This point 
is fully considered in another chapter of this work. 



Chapter v. 

I. Peter 3: 18-22: "Because even Christ suf- 
fered, once, for sins, a righteous one for unrighteous 
ones that he might bring us to God, having been 
put to death in the flesh but made aHve in the 
spirit, in which he went forth and preached also 
to imprisoned spirits, disobedient at a time when 
the long suffering of God waited, in the days of 
Noah, while an ark was being prepared, in which 
a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safe, 
through water, which — the antitype, baptism — now 
also saves you, not a putting away of filth of flesh, 
but the asking of a good conscience after God — 
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is by 
the right hand of God, having gone into heaven ; 
angels and authorities and powers being put under 
him." 

Peter, in this epistle, has, as I suppose, for his 
main purpose the helping of the dispersed to en- 
dure hardness — persecution — as good soldiers of 
Jesus Christ. He assures them that if they should 
maintain their integrity and faithfulness to God, 
though they should suffer, even death, God would 

reward them abundantly. If they should plead 

(216) 



baptism; its designs. 217 

their innocence and purity of life in evidence that 
they ought not to be persecuted, the apostle would 
agree with them. But the fact of their suffering is 
not to be taken as proof of sins or crimes com- 
mitted by them, nor as an unexpected or unprece- 
dented thing. He reminds them that even their 
Savior, innocent and pure as he was, suffered death 
at the hands of just such wicked men as were then 
afflicting them. He cites the case of the wicked 
antedeluvians and Noah. He says, as an illustra- 
tion of God's great desire to save even the wicked, 
of his being willing to suffer long on their account, 
of his merciful kindness towards them and the cer- 
tainty that God would, in the end, destroy the 
wicked and save the good, that Jesus, by his 
spirit, went and preached to them through Noah, 
but that they did not repent. He says that God, 
after long suffering and patient waiting, used water 
as a means of destroying the wicked ones, and of 
delivering righteous Noah and family from a wicked, 
persecuting people, into a new world, cleansed from 
sin, in which they should live righteous lives. Peter 
says, the water which was used of God as a means 
of carrying those disposed for salvation over from 
the old world into the new, and of destroying the 
wicked, was a type of baptism — the antitype ; and 
that the antitype, even baptism — now saves "you." 
This I suppose to be the real meaning of the pas- 
sage. The apostle says that water — the antitype, 



2i8 baptism; its designs. 

baptism — '*now saves you." Observe, it is not 
said that Noah and his family were saved by water, 
nor in water, nor from water ; but they were saved 
through water as the mode through which God 
exerted His saving power. So it is in regard to 
the water of baptism, the antitype. It now saves 
us, not as a Savior, but as a mode or medium 
through which God exerts His saving power. To 
this God has tied us, though he may not have tied 
himself. 

It is not an explanation of this scripture which 
says that baptism does not now save us, but it is 
a contradiction of it. I am aware that there is 
some difference of opinion in regard to the correct 
reading of the Greek text at this place among 
scholars. I have construed the passage according 
to the most approved Greek text.. But, so far as 
our contention at this point is concerned, no Greek 
reading claimed by any scholar would change the 
sense materially, I believe. 

But it is sometimes contended that Peter does 
certainly say, that baptism is in this verse expressly 
said to be, not for putting away the filth of the 
flesh — sins. If the words, ** filth of flesh," mean 
sins, the objection is valid. The Greek is: '^ou 
sarkos apothesis hrupou. Rupos does not occur in 
New Testament Greek except at this place. Rob- 
inson's New Testament Greek Lexicon says it sig- 
nifies, ''filth, filthiness.'' Classical Lexicons take 



baptism; its designs. 219 

the same view. Sophocles' Lexicon of the Greek 
language for a period, from B. C. 146 to A. D. 
1 100, does not contain the word ; but cognate words 
are defined as above. There is an allusion to the 
idea of sin in his definitions. Rev. 22: 11, cited 
to prove that hrupos means sin, does not have the 
word. A kindred word, hruparos — is employed, 
and it is by no means certain, or even probable, 
that it is here employed in the sense of sin. John 
says here that the ''adikon (unrighteous, sinful) 
shall be unrighteous still, and the filthy — hruparos 
^let him be filthy still," etc. I see no sufficient 
reason to think that riiparos, in this passage, sig- 
nifies sinful. The unrighteous — the sinful — are 
designated in this verse by the term, adikotiy and 
ruparos seems to introduce another class of per- 
sons. Be this as it may, and there is room for a 
difference of opinion, it is admitted that this word, 
not in the scriptures but elsewhere, is used in the 
sense of moral impurity, sometimes. But the 
possibility of its having such a sense in the third 
of I. Peter is cut off by the genitive, sarkos — of 
the flesh. That is, the cleansing in this case is not 
a Jewish cleansing from carnal impurities, which, 
under the law, required the bathing of the whole 
body in water. Peter says that this antitype — 
baptism — is not that; it does not cleanse in that 
sense. It is not a carnal ordinance. Baptism is the 
act of one, having a good conscience, seeking or 



220 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

asking after God. The being baptized is the act 
of one {eis Theon), on his way to God with the 
purpose of entering into His kingdom. See John 
3:5; Gal. 3 : 27, et al. 

But, it is said, This one, who, by the terms of 
the record, is required to have a good conscience, 
before his baptism, must be supposed to be par- 
doned before his baptism. That is, the having a 
good conscience implies the forgiveness of sins. 
The conclusion in this case does not follow from 
the premises. A good conscience not only may, 
but must antecede the remission of sins. Nor does 
the remission of sins follow immediately, nor, of 
necessity, at all, upon the possession of a good 
conscience. Paul lived in all good conscience for 
years, during all which time he was the greatest 
of sinners. The passage means that, one seek- 
ing after God, must do so, having, in regard to 
the act, a good conscience. If one should fail of 
having a good conscience, in being baptized, he 
is not therein baptized, he does not seek after 
God, nor does he please God. The act is that 
of a hypocrite ; it is a sin. But, when one is 
convinced that he is a sinner and has come to love 
God, and therefore, to hate sin, and repents, that 
is, resolves to turn away from sinning and seek 
God's forgiveness and enter upon his service, with 
an honest, true purpose, or in "all good conscience, 
and is thus baptized, he is saved. In a sense, bap- 



baptism; its designs. 221 

tism does not save him, but God saves him through 
it. In this sense baptism also now saves us. It is 
not for carnal cleansing, but it is a step, a Divinely- 
appointed step, in the progress of one having a 
good conscience making his way to God, or to 
God's kingdom. If it be, as it certainly is, a God 
appointed step, lying between the lost sinner and 
the kingdom of God, then it is a condition of re- 
m.ission of sins; or, it is "for remission of sins." 

On this passage, I. Peter 3: 21, John Wesley, 
in his notes, says : * * The thing typified by the ark, 
even baptism, now saveth us. That is, through the 
water of baptism we are saved from the sin that 
overwhelms the world as a flood." 

The late lamented Albert Barnes says: "The 
antecedent to the relative, whichever word is used, 
is clearly not the ark^ but water, and the idea is, that 
as Noah was saved by water, so there is a sense 
in which water is made instrumental in our salva- 
tion. The mention of water in the case of Noah 
in connection with his being saved, by an obvious 
association, suggested to the mind of the apostle 
the use of water in our salvation, and hence led 
him to make the remark about the connection of 
baptism with our salvation. * * * The meaning 
here is, that baptism corresponded to, or had a ^rsem- 
blance to, the water by which Noah was saved ; or, 
that there was a use of water in the one case which 
corresponded in some respects to the water that 



222 baptism; its designs. 

was used in the other, to-wit: in effecting salva- 
tiony 

Bloomfield says: "The meaning, therefore, is 
that baptism, in order to save us, must not be the 
mere outward act. but must be also accompanied 
with the inward grace ; in other words, it must be 
that baptism which our Lord described as the be- 
ing born again of water and of the Spirit." See 
John 3:5.. 

Dr. Watson says : " It is also, obviously, an act 
of faith in order to remission of sins." 

Bengel says: "Baptism now saves us." 

Murdock says: We are "made alive by bap- 
tism." 

Alford says : ' ' eis ^en, by having entered into 
which, [psuchai.] Acts 27 : 37. di' hud., by water 
bearing up the ark. [21.] Which (water gener- 
ally) the antitype (of that) (/. e. , the corresponding 
particular in both cases) is now saving you also, 
even baptism." 

Here I close my citations of the scriptures sup- 
posed to be in point in this investigation. There 
are a few other passages of the "Word of God," 
that might be quoted with good reason. But evi- 
dence of the correctness of my position would 
hardly be increased thereby. If it should be said 
that I have already quoted and commented upon 
too many scriptures ; that if the position is really 
sustained by any one or two of the passages cited, 



baptism; its designs. 223 

then the balance of the citations were unnecessary, 
if not an impertinence, I should beg to say : The 
objection is, in one view, good. A proposition, 
proved, needs, for the mind that sees it that way, 
nothing more. But it is also true that of a number 
— a large number — of proofs which are separately, 
or ought to be, entirely conclusive of the proposi- 
tion being considered, possibly only one of them 
seems to be so to the mind of A, whereas, other 
passages might strike the mind of B, C, or D, etc., 
with more force. This is, at least, the reason why 
I pursued the course that I have herein. 



Section III. 



Chapter I. 

We have said, and repeated, that from the nature 
of the case, God only should be heard in deciding 
our question ; for since he is the author of the de- 
cision, he only knows, in this sense, what it is. 
So called human authorities have frequently been 
cited, not because they have, of themselves, any 
right to speak, but because they are often of as- 
sistance in throwing light on various questions that 
have been or may be raised in regard to the teach- 
ings of the Bible. Their statements are of no force 
on the question : What must one do to be saved, 
except as they may, and they often do, throw 
light on the question: What does God say it is 
one's duty to do in order to be saved ? 

Again, where differences of opinion exist some 
persons may be much more apt to see or to know 
the right than are others. As a rule, all other 
things being equal, (i) Those nearest the scene are 
apter to understand its facts than are others. 

(2) Those who testify before any controversy 

has arisen in regard to a matter, are less liable to 

(224) 



baptism; its designs. 225 

err than are those who speak after passions have 
been aroused by warm and even angry controversy. 
For both of these reasons those who hved imme- 
diately after the time of the apostles and of Jesus, 
would be more trustworthy in their statements on 
our subject, than are those of the present century. 

I shall, therefore, conclude this examination by 
liberal citations from the most noteworthy writings 
of all the earlier centuries after the apostolic times, 
with_ a few quotations from those of more recent 
date. 

Under the head, '''The Connection Between 
Baptism and the Remission of Sins," the learned 
and accomplished ex-president of Bethany College, 
West Virginia, W. K. Pendleton, says : ' * In no 
age of the Church has she failed to assert the ob- 
ligation of baptism. So positive are the precepts 
of the scriptures on this subject, so demonstrative 
the practice of the apostles, and so unanimous the 
unbroken testimony of the great cloud of Patristic 
teachers, that no phase o[ evangelical ecclesiasti- 
cism has dared to so modify or change the uni- 
form rule as to admit to the privileges of the 
Church any unbaptized applicant for recognition. 
Whatever else they may have differed about, on 
this point they have been a unit. They have said, 
with one voice : Between the world and the Church 
there stands the ' bath of regeneration. ' Whether 
it be the Jordan, the ' much water ' of Enon, the 



226 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

wayside pool on the ' way to Gaza, ' the sculptured 
font of less ancient precedent, or the still later 
abridgment of the paltry pitcher — whether im- 
mersion, affusion, or rantism — in all time, through 
all changes, and by all evangelical branches, bap- 
tism, in name if not in fact, has been held up as 
the one indispensible 'sacrament,' without which 
the hand of fellowship could not be extended, nor 
the rights of citizenship allowed. Differ as they 
might about the 'doctrine ' of baptism, they were 
unanimous in holding it to be a Divine requisition, 
and debate as they would about what is sophistic- 
ally called the 'mode,' they had no controversy 
as to the duty of all to submit to it in some form. 
If such be the place which this institution has 
held through all the centuries of Christianity, must 
not there be some reason for it, fixed and profound 
as the very foundations of our redemption? And 
what can such reason be, short of an established 
and recognized connection of some sort between 
baptism and the remission of sins ? If baptism 
were an insignificant, a meaningless rite, a mere 
Oriental custom of apostolic times, a thing of fash- 
ion, or an accident of civilization, it would, doubt- 
less, like the * salutation ' of the ' kiss,' or the 
courtesy of * feet-washing,' have long since dropped 
out of the fixed ordinances of the Church, and be- 
come a thing of indifference. On the contrary, 
not only has it been uncompromisingly maintained, ■ 



baptism; its designs. 227 

but upon grounds which exalt it into a significance 
and purpose that justify the high importance which 
has ever been attached to it." 

In speaking of the testimonies of "The Fa- 
thers/' apostoHc, the same writer says : "Oneofthe 
first distinctions to be made in studying their writ- 
ings is that between their statement oi facts ^ and 
their expression of their opinions. As to facts, 
their authority is certainly entitled to distinguished 
consideration ; for they stood near to the things 
whereof they testify, and spoke under the critical 
and vigilant censorship of hosts of hostile com- 
mentators. True, they sometimes pervert the facts 
in order to fit them to their arguments ; but, if 
we watch them as they are passed through the 
crucible of controversy, we can generally determ- 
ine what is genuine and true. As to their inter- 
pretations of scripture, these were on many sub- 
jects, diverse and discordant. But where there is 
general or unbroken harmony, where there is no 
diversity, but the judgment is one and undisputed, 
linking itself directly to apostolic times, and pass- 
ing down with unchallenged acceptance through 
all phases of controversy, and with every variety 
of theorist, then it rises to the dignity of a law, 
and though subject to revision under comparison 
with the supreme and infallible standard, claims a 
rank in our criteria of truth next to that of inspira- 
tion. 



228 baptism; its designs. 

In introducing the Fathers, then, as throwing 
light upon our subject, we shall estimate their 
testimony by this rule : Where there is unanimous, 
or almost unanimous, agreement among the great 
representative men of the primitive Church as to 
a fact or the interpretation of a passage of scripture, 
and this agreement can be traced back to an ori- 
gin, if not in, at least the nearest to, the apostolic 
times, and without contradiction of history, or in- 
consistency with scripture, then we must accept it 
as of highest authority, next to inspiration itself, 
in our judgment and faith." 

I. I cite, of this class of writers, first, Barnabas. 
Who he was is not fully known. For a long time 
he was supposed to- be the illustrious friend and 
companion of the apostle Paul. This claim is not 
now made for the writer of "The Epistle of Barn- 
abas," by the best authority. This epistle is 
quoted as the work of the Barnabas of scripture, 
by such great names as Clement of Alexandria 
(seven times), by Origin (three times), by Euse- 
bius and by Jerome. See Vol. I., page 167, Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible. "The epistle is believed 
to have been written early in the second century." 
The date of the writing of this epistle is probably 
earlier, but certainly not later than 140 A. D. 
Barnabas was, probably, personally acquainted 
with some of the apostles and with their preaching. 
It is, undoubtedly, true that he was well acquainted 



baptism; its designs. 229 

with many of the disciples in many places, made 
by the apostles in person. So the testimony of 
Barnabas, whose epistle was read in the churches 
and was regarded as of almost equal authority 
with the writings of the apostles, is of the greatest 
weight. 

I quote from the apostolic Fathers, Vol. I., page 
120: "Let us further inquire whether the Lord 
took any care to foreshadow the water [of Bap.] 
and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it 
is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they 
should not receive that bap asm which leads to the 
remission of sins, but should procure another for 
themselves." 

The same, page 121: ''This meaneth that we 
indeed descend into the water full of sins and de- 
filement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, 
having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our 
spirit." 

2. ''The Pastor of Hermas." This Father 
was a cotemporary of Barnabas, with a probability 
of his having written a little earlier — say A. D. 
120. T. and T. Clark, of Edinburgh, Scotland, 
editors of the Ante-Nicene Library, say: "The 
Pastor of Hermas " w^as one of the most popular 
books, if not the most popular book in the Chris- 
tian Church during the second, third, and fourth 
centuries. It occupied a position analogous, in 
some respects, to that of Bunyan's "Pilgrim's 



230 baptism; its designs. 

Progress," in modern times; and critics have fre- 
quently compared the two works. 

In ancient times two opinions prevailed in regard 
to the authorship. The most widely spread was, 
that "The Pastor of Hermas " was the production 
of the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to the 
Romans. Origen states this opinion distinctly, and 
it is repeated by Eusebius and Jerome. 

Those who beheved the apostohc Hermas to be 
the author necessarily esteemed the book very 
highly ; and there was much discussion as to 
whether it was inspired or not. The early writers 
are of opinion that it was really inspired. Irenaeus 
speaks of it as Scripture; Clemens Alexandrinus 
speaks of it as making its statements 'divinely;' 
and Origen, though a few of his expressions are 
regarded, by some, as implying doubt, unques- 
tionably gives it as his opinion that it is * divinely 
inspired.' Eusebius mentions that differences of 
opinion prevailed in his day as to the inspiration 
of the book, some opposing its claims and others 
maintaining its divine origin, especially because it 
formed an admirable introduction to the Christian 
faith. For this latter reason it was read publicly, 
he tells us, in the Churches. 

The only voice of antiquity decidly opposed to 
the claim is that of TertuUian. He designates it 
apocryphal, and rejects it with scorn as fav^oring 
Anti-Montanistic opinions. Even his words, how- 



baptism; its designs. 231 

ever, show that it was regarded in many churches 
as scripture." (Tertullian was a Montanist. W.) 

It is admitted that there is some difference of 
opinion as to who this Hermas was. But his tes- 
timony is not at all affected by this fact. There 
is no difference of opinion as to the fact that these 
writings were held in the very highest esteem and 
even veneration by so great a personage as Ire- 
naeus, who regarded them as "scripture." When 
we remember that Irenaeus was born, probably, 
as early as A. D. 160 or 165, and wrote towards 
the close of the second century, and that these 
writings had become so famous in his time, it is 
certain that they are very ancient and are entitled 
to the greatest weight. 

This very ancient writer, who, though he may 
not possibly have been personally acquainted with 
any of the apostles, certainly knew many of their 
own converts, deposes on our question as follows: 
**Hear, then, why the tower is built upon the 
waters. It is because your life has been and will 
be saved by water." Hermas is here represented 
as conversing with a venerable lady from whom he 
gains all the information concerning the Church 
and salvation that he needed or desired. The 
water mentioned here through which he was saved 
is supposed to be the water of baptism, and it is 
not easy to see to what else reference could be 
made. See * 'Apostolic Fathers," page 335. 



232 baptism; its designs. 

Again, on page 420, we read: ''They were 
obliged, he said, to ascend through water in order 
that they might be made aHve ; for, unless they 
laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not 
in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. 
Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received 
the seal of the Son of God. For, he continued, 
before a man bears the name of the Son of God 
he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays 
aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, 
then, is the water; they descend into the water 
dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accord- 
ingly, was this seal preached, and they made use 
of it that they might enter into the kingdom of 
God." 

That there is, herein, an undoubted allusion to 
baptism is not questioned by any one so far as 
I am advised. I believe there is no room for 
doubting this fact. This point being conceded and 
indisputable, the lesson, as it respects our conten- 
tion, is plain. "They were obliged to ascend 
through water in order that they might be made 
alive," is language that points to the necessity of 
baptism in order to life. Again, "descend into 
the water dead, and they arise alive." Speaking of 
the seal [baptism] it is said : "They made use of it 
that they might enter into the kingdom of God." 
In the times of Hermas, then, it is established that 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 233 

baptism was regarded by him, at least, as for sal- 
vation, or remission of sins. 

3. Justin Martyr shall be heard next. He was 
*'born in Flavia, NeapoHs, a city of Samaria, the 
modern Nablous." His birth "may be fixed at 
about A. D. 114." He was a man of considera- 
ble learning, and he is regarded as having been a 
philosopher of no mean distinction. 

After his conversion to Christianity he became 
a most zealous advocate of it. He traveled much 
and disseminated a knowledge of that religion 
which, to him, was the sum of all that was beauti- 
ful and blessed. He is said to have suffered mar- 
tyrdom at Rome about A. D. 165. 

In the first one of his celebrated Apologies, 
which was addressed to Emperor Antonius Pi as, 
et. al., on page 59 of ''Apostolic Fathers," under 
the head, "Christian Baptism," he says: "I will 
also relate the manner in which we dedicated our- 
selves to God when we had been made new through 
Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair 
in the explanation we are making. As many as 
are persuaded and believe that what we teach and 
say is true, and undertake to be able to live accord- 
ingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God 
with fasting for the remission of their sins that are 
past, we praying and fasting with them. Then 
they are brought by us where there is water, and 
are regenerated in the same manner in which we 



234 baptism; its designs. 

were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of 
God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of 
our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, 
they then receive the washing with water. P'or 
Christ also said. Except ye be born again, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Again, 
on same page, he says: "And for this (rite) we 
have learned from the apostles this reason. Since 
at our birth we were born without our own knowl- 
edge or choice, by our parents' coming together, 
and were brought up in bad habits and wicked 
training; in order that we may not remain the 
children of necessity and of ignorance, but may 
become the children of choice and knowledge, and 
may obtain in the water the remission of sins for- 
merly committed, there is pronounced over him 
who chooses to be born again, and has repented of 
his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord 
of the Universe; he who leads to the laver the 
person that is to be washed, calling him by this 
name alone. * * * And in the name of Jesus 
Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and 
in the name of the Holy Spirit, who, through the 
prophets, foretold all things about Jesus, he who 
is illuminated is washed." Justin, in this quota- 
tation, as almost every-where, uses highly figurative 
language. Still, the entire connection being con- 
sidered, there is no doubt but that the words, 
"born again," the name of Father, Son and Holy 



baptism; its designs. 235 

Ghost, "pronounced over him," ** leads to the 
laver the person that is to be washed," "and may 
obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly 
committed," etc., lead to and justify the conclu- 
sion that Justin believed and taught that baptism 
is for remission of sins. 

To show how careful Justin was to know and to 
declare the truth ; and to show how ample and re- 
liable his means of information were, I quote from 
"Ancient Christianity Exemplified," by Lyman 
Coleman, as follows: "At an advanced age he 
(Irenaeus), a disciple of Polycarp of Asia-Minor, 
and the disciple of John, says of Polycarp: 'I re- 
member his discourses to the people concerning 
the conversations he had with John the Apostle 
and others who had seen the Lord ; how he re- 
hearsed their discourses, and what he heard them 
who were eye-witnesses of the Word of Life say 
of our Lord, and of his miracles and doctrine.* 
This proves that Polycarp had diligently inquired 
from those who could tell him, concerning our 
Lord and his doctrine. He had made himself 
master of whatever was to be known." Thus Ire- 
naeus states and Coleman comments. 

Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna, a city of Asia- 
Minor. His date is probably about A. D. 150. 
Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons, and wrote near 
the close of the second century. In Asia-Minor 
he was personally well acquainted with Polycarp. 



236 baptism; its designs. 

* * In writing an address to Florinus, a false teacher 
with whom, in his youth, he had enjoyed the soci- 
ety of Polycarp, he says : ' These doctrines, the 
elders who preceded us, who associated also with 
the apostles, did not teach thee ; for, while I was 
yet a boy, I saw thee in company with Polycarp, 
in Asia-Minor ; for I bear in remembrance what 
happened then better than what happens now. '" 

Now Justin lived and wrote, probably, fifty years 
before Irenaeus did ; he was distinguished for his 
learning and zeal, and traveled much. He must, 
therefore, be presumed to have had the very best 
opportunities for knowing what was taught by the 
apostles, and was every-where believed and prac- 
ticed by the Christians. 

4. Irenaeus, of whom I have spoken with suffi- 
cient fullness, for our present purpose in setting forth 
the relation of baptism to our becoming united to 
Christ, says: "As the dry wheat can not become 
one mass of dough and one loaf of bread without 
moisture, so neither can we all become one in 
Christ without the water which is from heaven. 
And as the parched earth can not yield fruit unless 
it receive moisture, so neither can we who, at first, 
are but sapless wood, ever produce living fruit 
without the rain which is freely poured out from 
above ; for, our bodies, through baptism, but our 
souls, through the Spirit, have obtained that com- 



baptism; its designs. 237 

munion with the imperishable essence." Book 3, 
chapter 17. 

5. TertLilhan, a very learned Latin author of 
Carthage, in Northern Africa, and a Presbyter of 
the Church, was born about A. D. 165 or 170, and 
wrote about the closing decade of the second cen- 
tury. He was a voluminous and a very vigorous 
writer. In his Treatise, "De Baptismo," in the 
writings of TertuUian, Vol. I., page 239, he says : 
''Quomodo ct ipsiiis baptismi carnalis actus, quod in 
aqua inergimur, spi?italis effectus, quod delictis liber- 
amur,'' which in English is: "As, of baptism itself 
there is a carnal act, in that we are immersed in 
water, there is a spiritual effect, that we are freed 
from sins." 

Again, on page 231, TertuUian says: "Happy 
is the sacrament of our water (baptism. W.), in 
that, by washing away the sins of our early blind- 
ness, we are set free [and admitted], into eternal 
life." Again, TertuUian, Neander, Vol. I., page 
646, Ecc. Hist., says: "When the soul attains to 
faith, and is transformed by the regeneration of 
water and the power from above, the covering of 
the old corruption having been removed, she be- 
holds her whole light. She is received into the 
communion of the Holy Spirit ; and the soul which 
unites itself with the Holy Spirit is followed by 
the body which is no longer the servant of the soul, 
hut becomes the servant of the Spirit." 



238 baptism; its designs. 

But that Tertullian taught that baptism is for 
remission of sins is a fact so well known that no 
further citations are needed in proof. His very 
great fondness for the use of figurative language, 
which led him to indulge in strained comparisons 
and far-fetched or slight resemblances and analo- 
gies at times, leave the import of his language not 
quite clear. He seems, in some places, to ascribe 
to baptism itself magical, and even supernatural 
effects. The last quotation, however, seems to 
decidedly contradict this idea. 

But it does not matter, as it respects our present 
examination, whether he did hold extreme views 
as to the efficacy of baptism or not. It is, at least, 
beyond all doubt that the learned, sagacious Tertid- 
lian, of the second century, who was, possibly, ac- 
quainted with some of the disciples of the apostles 
themselves, beHeved what, up to that time, no one, 
representative of our religion, ever denied, that 
"baptism is for remission of sins." Again, Ter- 
tullian says: "The divine grace, full and free for- 
giveness of sins, awaits those who will come to bap- 
tism ; but we also must do what belongs to our 
part, in order to qualify us to receive it." 

Again: Tertullian **De Baptismo," chapter 12, 
page 245: "When, however, the prescript is laid 
down that without baptism, salvation is attainable 
by none." See also Wall's History of Infant 
Baptism, in two volumes. Vol. I., page 55. 



baptism; its designs. 239 

6. Clement of Alexandria was cotemporary with 
Tertullian. He was "the illustrious head of the 
Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of 
the second century." * * * "On embracing Chris- 
tianity, he eagerly sought the instructions of its 
most eminent teachers ; for this purpose traveling, 
extensively, over Greece, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, 
and other regions of the East. >K * * j^ tj^g 
beginning of the reign of Caracalla, we find him 
at Jerusalem, even then a great resort of Christian, 
and especially clerical pilgrims. We also hear of 
him traveling to Antioch, furnished with a letter 
of recommendation by Alexander, Bishop of Je- 
rusalem." Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 
IV. Clement of Alexandria, Vol. I., page 11. 

From these extracts it will be seen that his means 
for large and accurate information were exceedingly 
good. When it is also noted that before his con- 
version he was a distinguished pagan philosopher, 
and that, after his conversion, his character for 
fidelity and piety was among the very best, it will 
be allowed that his statements are deserving of 
much weight. 

Of this Clement, President Pendleton says : "He 
was a man eminently spiritual in his views, and 
can not be supposed to have unduly exaggerated 
the importance of baptism ; yet, so strong was his 
conviction of the divinely appointed relation be- 



240 baptism; its designs. 

tween baptism and the remission of sins, that we 
find him agreeing with Hermas in thinking that the 
'Apostles performed, in hades, the rite of baptism 
on the pious souls of the Old Testament who had 
not been baptized.' " 

Hermas' words are: ''It was necessary for them 
to ascend by water, that they might be at rest ; for 
they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom 
of God but by laying aside the mortality of their 
former life. They, therefore, being dead (or, though 
dead. W.), were, nevertheless, sealed with the 
seal [baptism] of the Son of God, and so entered 
into the kingdom of God." 

Nean. Ecc. Hist. Vol. L, p. 646, corroborates 
this statement. He says: "Even in the spiritual 
Clement of Alexandria we may discern the influ- 
ence of that outward and material conception of 
spiritual matters when he agrees with Hermas in 
thinking that the apostles performed in hades the 
rite of baptism on the pious souls of the Old Tes- 
tament, who had not been baptized." 

The name of the illustrious Origen is very fa- 
miliar to all readers of Church History. He was 
born about 185 A. D., in Alexandria, Egypt. The 
time of his writing, or the beginning thereof, may 
be put at about 215. He was the pupil of the 
distinguished Clement of Alexandria. He wrote 
in Greek, and he was, probably, the most learned 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 24 1 

and the most noted writer of all the Church fathers 
of the first centuries of our era. 

We know but little of what Origen wrote except 
as we obtain them through translations of them 
made by Rufinus and Jerome. 

Rufinus says that the works of Origen which he 
translated had already been ' ' corrupted in numer- 
ous places by heretics and malevolent persons." 
But another and greater source of doubt and con- 
fusion in the mind of one who reads what now pur- 
ports to be the writings of Origen, is the fact that, 
so far as the translations of Rufinus are concerned, 
we are often at a loss to decide whether we are 
reading Origen, or only some additions, modifica- 
tions, explanations, or glosses of the translator. In 
making his translations, he says, he "took care 
not to reproduce those expressions occurring in 
the works of Origen which are inconsistent with 
and opposed to each other." 

"Wall on Infant Baptism," in two volumes, in 
Vol. I. , page 6^, says : * ' For, whereas Origen's 
books contained in them several expressions not 
consistent with the faith, in some points ; St. Jerome 
changed nothing, but expressed everything as it 
was in the original, as he owns himself; but Ru- 
finus altered or left out any thing that he thought 
not orthodox. And in the ' Homilies on Leviti- 
cus ' he himself says that he took a greater liberty 
than ordinary." So, it is pretty well settled that, 



242 baptism; its designs. 

where Rufinus was the translator, we may not feel 

entirely certain that what we read is the real sen- 
timent of Origen. 

Moreover, though Origen was a very learned 
man, and probably, a very good man, yet he did 
hold a number of tenets which almost all fair minded 
men now regard as heretical. Still, it is not prob- 
able that one so learned and so widely informed, 
and, too, a sincere man, should be mistaken as to 
a mere histo}ical eveitt, which, if true, was a very 
notorious one, but if not true, was notoriously false. 
Such is the character of the subject matter on which 
we question Origen. There was no occasion that 
Origen should fail to give, on our present subject, 
an unbiased testimony ; for, from the giving of the 
great commission by Jesus to his ambassadors, till 
Origen's day, there had never been a dissenting 
voice, so far as I know. 

Again, Jerome (see "Wall on Infant Baptism," 
Vol. I., page 65), in translating Origen makes him 
say : ' ' Having occasion given in this place, I will 
mention a thing that causes frequent enquiries 
among the brethren. ''Infants (parvuli) are bap- 
tized for the forgiveness of sins." This statement 
is full and unequivocal. It needs no explanation. 
There are a number of other quotations that might 
be made equally as much to my purpose as this ; 
but they are not all quite so well supported as the 
one I have here made. This quotation, if it be 



baptism; its designs. 243 

genuine, as it probably is, settles the question. 
Origen held that baptism is for remission of sins. 

Whether Origen held to infant baptism, is not 
decided by this quotation. ''Parvuli,'' the Latin 
word used by Origen's translator, does not neces- 
sarily, or even generally, signify infants, in the 
present current meaning of the term. 

8. Cyprian, called by his biographer Pontius, 
' ' the devout priest and glorious witness (martyr) of 
God," was born about A. D. 200. 

Not much is known of his early hfe. Pontius 
says of him: "Although the profuse fertility of 
his eloquence and of God's grace so expands itself 
in the exuberance and richness of his discourse, 
that he will probably never cease to speak, even 
to the end of the world ; yet * * * I have thought 
it well to prepare this brief and compendious nar- 
rative. " 

"That he was born of respectable parents, and 
that he was highly educated for the profession of a 
rhetorician," seem to be well settled facts. 

He was converted to the Christian faith under 
the tuition of the Presbyter, Caecillius, at Carthage, 
Africa, in A. D. 246. 

His great learning, genius, and perhaps, piety, 
sent him like a meteor along the hne of promotion, 
so that within two years from the time of his con- 
version, he was ordained Bishop at Carthage, which 



244 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

position he held till his martyrdom, which oc-^ 
curred in the year 258. 

In his letter "to the Clergy abiding at Rome," 
Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. VIII., and of the Writ- 
ings of Cyprian, Vol. I., page 66^ it is said: 
** For while the Lord has said that the nations are 
to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and their past 
sins are to be done away in baptism; this man, 
ignorant of the precept and of the law, commands 
peace to be granted and sins to be done away in 
the name of Paulus. " 

Again, p. 145, same volume, it is said : '"Alms 
do deliver from death,' and not, assuredly, from 
that death which once the blood of Christ extin- 
guished, and from which the saving grace of bap- 
tism and of our Redeemer has delivered us, but 
from that which subsequently creeps in through 
sins." 

In Vol. II., page 185, in his "Testimonies 
against the Jews," Cyprian says "that all sins are 
put away in baptism." See also, "Wall on Infant 
Baptism," in two volumes, Volume L, page 82. 

These quotations are deemed sufficient to show 
that Cyprian taught that baptism is for remission 
of sins. They could be greatly extended if deemed 
necessary. 

9. I find in " Neander's Church History," Vol- 
ume II., page 665, et aL, quite a number of his- 



baptism; its designs. 245 

torical matters bearing on our subject, which I 
think best to quote verbatim from said author. He 
is considering several matters of difference then 
existing between prominent persons belonging to 
the Eastern and the Western Churches, so called. 
He says: " As it respects the doctrine concerning 
baptism, from which, for reasons stated under the 
preceding period, the doctrine of regeneration was 
not severed, we must observe that the difference 
here again became strongly marked, which we dis- 
cern in the views of the Eastern compared with 
those of the Western Church, with regard to 
human nature and the doctrine of redemption ; 
namely, that in the Western Church, with original 
sin, the negative effect of the redemption in pro- 
curing deliverance frohi this ; and in the Eastern 
Church, on the other hand, the positive effect of 
the redemption considered in the light of a new 
creation, were made especially prominent. Thus 
Gregory of Nanzianzus calls baptism a more divine 
exalted creation than the original formation of 
nature. Thus, too, Cyril of Jerusalem, address- 
ing the candidate for baptism, says : * If thou be- 
hevest, thou not only obtainest the forgiveness of 
sins, but thou effectest also that which is above 
man. Thou obtainest as much of grace as thou 
canst hold.' This difference would be strongly 
marked, especially in the case of infant baptism. 
Accordmg to the North- African scheme of doctrine. 



246 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

which taught that all men were from their birth, 
in consequence of the guilt and sin transmitted from 
Adam, subjected to the same condemnation, that 
they bore within them the principles of all sin, de- 
liverance from original sin and inherited guilt would 
be made particularly prominent in the case of in- 
fant baptism, as in the case of the baptism of adults ; 
and this was favored by the ancient formula of bap- 
tism, which, however, originated in a period when 
infant baptism had as yet no existence, and had 
been afterwards applied, without alteration, to 
children, because men shrunk from undertaking to 
introduce any change in the consecrated formula 
established by apostolical authority, though Chris- 
tians were by no means agreed as to the sense in 
which they applied the formula. Accordingly, 
says Gregory Nazianzen, to children baptism is a 
seal (a means of securing human nature in the germ, 
against all moral evil by the higher principle of life 
communicated to it) ; for adults it is, moreover, 
forgiveness of sin and restoration of the image de- 
graded and lost by transgression." 

Hence, he looks upon infant baptism as a con- 
secration to the priestly dignity which is imparted 
to the child from the beginning, that so evil may 
gain no advantage over him. In a homily ad- 
dressed to the Neophytes, Chrysostom specifies ten 
different effects of grace wrought in baptism ; and 
then he complains of those who make the grace of 



baptism; its designs. 247 

baptism consist simply in the forgiveness of sins. 
True, the difference here becomes manifest between 
the more rhetorical Chrysostom and the systematic 
Augustin ; for the latter would have referred those 
ten specifications to one fundamental conception, 
in which they might all be summed up together." 

On page 666, same volume, Neander represents 
Isadore of Pelusium as holding that "Infants were 
not only delivered from the punishment of sin in 
baptism, but, moreover, had imparted to them a 
Divine regeneration, adoption, justification, fellow- 
ship with Christ." 

On page 66y, he represents Theodore as holding 
that ''baptism, in the case of adults, has a twofold 
purpose — to bestow on them the forgiveness of 
sins, and to exalt them by fellowship with Christ 
to a participation in his freedom from sin," etc. 

Same page, Neander says: "In this way we 
must understand what Coelestius says, in the Creed 
which he sent to Rome : * Infants must, according 
to the rule of the Universal Church, and according 
to the declaration of the Gospel, he baptized in 
order to the forgiveness of sins.' " 

In these quotations it is every-where manifest 
that these distinguished persons not only held that 
baptism is for remission of sins, but that they ex- 
pressed views on the question before us quite in 
excess of what the Word of God authorizes or jus- 
tifies. Indeed, it was, as early as the times of 



248 baptism; its designs. 

Tertullian, by some held that there was a Divine 
energy in the water of baptism y which was imparted 
to the one baptized, without regard to any prepa- 
ration made for the ordinance, or any quahfications 
precedent thereto. 

Tertullian, as we have before said, seemed, in 
some of his expressions, to have been under the 
influence of this error, to some extent. It is cer- 
tain that, if not in the life-time of Tertullian, very 
soon thereafter, this error was a very common 
one. As early as the time of Cyprian, 252 A. D., 
this erroneous view of the magical effect of bap- 
tism was the common one. 

The distinguished Lyman Coleman, in his ''An- 
cient Christianity Exemplified," page 377, says: 
''From these Fathers we advance, omitting inter- 
mediate authorities of less importance, to Cyprian, 
in the middle of the third century. In the age 
of Cyprian there arose in Africa a question whether 
a child might be baptized befoj'e the eighth day or 
not. 

Fidus, a country bishop, referred the enquiry to 
a council of sixty-six bishops, convened under 
Cyprian, A. D. 253, for their opinion. To this 
enquiry they reply at length, delivering it as their 
unanimous opinion that baptism may, with propri- 
ety, be administered at any time previous to the 
eighth day. No question was raised on the point 
whether children ought to be baptized at all or 



baptism; its designs. 249 

not. ' This, therefore, was our opinion in the coun- 
cil, that we ought not to hinder any one from bap- 
tism and the grace of God. And this rule, as it 
holds for all, is, we think, more especially to be 
observed in reference to infants, even to those 
newly born. ' " See also, " Neander's Church His- 
tory, " Volume I., page 3 13, as follows: ** But, when, 
now, on the one hand, the doctrine of the corrup- 
tion and guilt, cleaving to human nature in conse- 
quence of the first transgression, was reduced to a 
more precise and systematic form, and on the other, 
from the want of duly distinguishing between what 
is outward and what is inward in baptism * * * 
the error became more firmly established, that with- 
out external baptism no one could be delivered 
from that inherent guilt, could be saved from the 
everlasting punishment that threatened him, or 
raised to eternal life ; and when the notion of a 
magical influence, a charm connected with the 
sacraments continually gained ground, the theory 
was finally evolved of the unconditional 7iecessity of 
infant baptism." This Neander follows with an 
account of Fidus' question put before Cyprian and 
his 65 bishops, so called, which I have already 
noted. To put the argument into a few words, 
let it be said that in the North African churches, 
especially in the time of Cyprian, the prevalent 
opinion was that baptism was for remission of sin, 
and by that time the opinion was general and de- 



250 

cided that ''corruption and guilt," inhered in 
human nature in consequence of the first transgres- 
sion. Now, as guilt belonged to human nature, it 
must, of course, belong to the infant ; as the guilty 
one must be lost if not pardoned, so, of course, 
the infant must be lost unless it is pardoned. So 
they thought and reasoned. To meet this condi- 
tion of things they determined to baptize the infant 
for remission of sins. Such confidence did Cyprian 
and his 65, so called, bishops have that the infant 
was lost unless its sins or guilt should be removed, 
and so sure did they feel that to baptize the infant 
was God's plan for its salvation, that it was the 
decision of 66 bishops of Northern Africa that 
the infant should be baptized as soon as possible 
after its birth. 

Also, they held that, "born of water," John 3: 
5, signified baptism; hence, they concluded that 
unless infants were baptized they were lost. As 
to whether infants ought to be baptized or not, I 
have nothing to say here ; I refer to the foregoing 
history to show what the opinion was in reference 
to the design of baptism and for no other purpose. 

To show how intensely interested and determined 
they were, every-where, who accepted and prac- 
ticed infant baptism, at this time and subsequently 
for centuries, I would remark that there were some 
embarrassments to be met and gotten over in the 
inauguration of the practice that required no small 



BAPTSIM ; ITS DESIGNS. 2$ I 

amourxt of skill to successfully encounter. It was 
the custom, in the Church, from the beginning to 
have the party about to be baptized to *' confess 
with the mouth the Lord Jesus." 

This confession the infant could not make. Ac- 
cording to usage immemorial, the confession must 
be made else one could not be baptized ; one must 
be baptized else he could not be saved. There- 
fore, as the infant could not confess, it must be 
lost unless some way of escape could be devised. 
To meet this difficulty it was determined that an 
attor7iey should be employed to speak for the in- 
fant. So, when the infant was asked: "(John F. 
Jones), do you believe ?" etc., the sponsor replied : 
"I do." This absurd proceeding never could have 
obtained among intelligent people had it not been 
determined that the baptism of the infant was, at 
least, exceedingly important. 

Gregory Nazianzen wrote during the latter part 
of the fourth century. This writer is so well known 
that no introduction is deemed necessary. 

In an " Oration on Holy Baptism," Or. 40, § 2, 
Gregory says : * ' Religion teaches us that there are 
three sorts of generation or formation : that of our 
bodies ; that of baptism ; and that of the resurrec- 
tion." Of the second — baptism — he says: **The 
second is of the day, and is free and powerful 
against lust, and takes away all that veil contracted 



252 baptism; its designs. 

in our birth and renews us to the supernal Hfe." 
*' Wall on Infant Baptism," Vol. I., page 102. 

Same volume, page 113, Dr. Wall summarizes 
as follows: *'It appears most evidently by the 
tenor of this sermon that Nazianzen held, concern- 
ing baptism, these tenets: i. That all who died 
unbaptized, by their own fault or negligence, were 
condemned. 2. He thought that infants dying 
unbaptized, and adult persons who missed of bap- 
tism by some unavoidable impediment, and not 
by their own fault, were in a kind of middle state 
between happiness and torment, but that baptized 
infants were partakers of the kingdom of Heaven. 

Basil, latter part of the fourth century. Wall, 
Vol. I., page 132, in a sermon addressed to the 
Catechumens, *'to persuade them to baptism," 
says : * * and unless thou pass through the water 
thou wilt not be delivered from the cruel tyranny 
of the devil," etc. Again, on page 133, he says: 
* ' If a physician could undertake, by any art, to 
make you young again when you are old, you 
would earnestly long for that day in which your 
florid youth should be restored ; and yet now, 
when it is told you that your soul, defiled with all 
manner of sin, may be renewed and born again by 
baptism, you shght so great a benefit." Again, 
same page, he says: "The sanctification of bap- 
tism you commend in words, but in your deeds 
you follow the things that yourself condemn." 



baptism; its designs. 253 

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan A. D. 375, says, in 
a comment on Luke i: 17: ''For that returning 
of the river waters backwards towards the spring- 
head, which was caused by EUas when the river 
was divided (as the scripture sd^ys Jordan was driven 
back) signified the sacrament of the laver of salva- 
tion, which was afterwards to be instituted, by which 
those infants that are baptized are reformed back 
again from wickedness [or a wicked state] to the 
primitive state of their nature." "Wall," Vol. I., 
pages 138 and 139. 

Again, on same page: "As Elias separated (or 
drove back) the waters of Jordan, so John brought 
persons to the baptism of salvation." 

St. Chrysostom, born at Antioch, 347, was made 
Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 397. "Wall," 
Vol. I., page 143. After saying, in substance, 
that circumcision was a painful operation and did 
no good except "that by this sign they were 
known and distinguished from other nations," 
Chrysostom says: "But our circumcision, I mean 
the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and 
procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with 
the grace of the Spirit; and it has no determinate 
time as that had ; but one that is in the very be- 
ginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of 
it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this 
circumcision made without hands. In which there 
is no trouble to be undergone, but to throw off 



254 baptism; its designs. 

the load of sins and receive pardon for all fore- 
going offenses." 

Julian, in that "Homily," which he (Chrisos- 
tom) preached concerning baptized persons, says: 
"Blessed be God, who only does wonders, who 
has created and ordered all things ; lo ! they do 
enjoy the Serenity of Freedom, who but even now 
were held in captivity ; they are become citizens 
of the Church, who were in the vagabond state of 
aliens ; and they are entered into the lot of the 
righteous, who were under the confusion of sin. 
For they are not only free, but saints ; nor saints 
only, but justified; and not only justified but 
sons ; and not only sons, but heirs ; not heirs only, 
but brothers of Christ ; not only his brothers, but 
co-heirs; not co-heirs only, but members of him; 
not members only, but his temple; and not his 
temple only, but organs of his spirit; you see 
how many are the benefits of baptism. And yet 
some think that the heavenly grace consists only 
in forgiveness of sins," etc. 

"Wall," Vol. I., pages 238, 239, quotes St. 
Austin, A. D. 410, as saying: "he never met with 
any Christian, either churchman or sectary ; nor 
with any writer that owned the scriptures, who 
taught any other doctrine but that infants are bap- 
tized for pardon of sin." ^i^ * * In discussing the 
meaning of I. Cor. 7: 14: "For neither are un- 
believing husbands or wives, how holy and just 



baptism; its designs. 255 

partners soever they have been, cleansed from the 
iniquity which keeps them from the kingdom of 
God, and brings them to damnation; nor are in- 
fants of how holy and just parents soever they 
came, pardoned the guilt of orignal sin, unless they 
(/. c. the one and the other) be baptized in Christ." 

Again, page 245. "The carnal generation is 
liable to that one offense, and the condemnation 
thereof; but the spiritual regeneration takes away 
not only that one for which infants are baptized, 
but also those many which men, by wicked living, 
have added to that in which they are generated." 
Quotations, such as these, could be made from 
this voluminous author to a great extent, but the 
above is deemed sufficient to show what his posi- 
tion on our question was. 

We have, incidentally, referred to Jerome's views 
of the design of baptism in former pages of this 
book ; but I will now cite a few words directly 
from him. Jerome is here holding a dialogue, in 
which Atticus represents the Jerome side of the 
controversy, and Critobidus represents the Pelagian 
side. Speaking of infants, Atticus says: "These 
have neither power nor will, but they are free from 
all sin by the grace of God, which they receive in 
baptism." In answer to the question: "For what 
reason are infants baptized?" Atticus says: "That 
in baptism their sins may be forgiven." * * * "But 
all persons are held obnoxious, either by their own 



256 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

or by their forefather, Adam's, sin. He that is an 
infant is, in baptism, loosed from the bond of his 
forefather ; he that is of age to understand is by 
the blood of Christ freed, both from his own bond, 
and also from that which is derived from another." 
Again, Atticus says: "This one thing I will say, 
that this discourse may at last have an end ; either 
you must set forth a new creed, and after the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, baptize in- 
fants unto the kingdom of heaven ; or else, if you 
acknowledge one baptism for infants and for grown 
persons , you must own that infants are to be bap- 
tized for forgiveness of sins ; sins after the simili- 
tude of Adam's transgression." 

Wall sums up, as follows: ''The Pelagians con- 
fessed that adult persons were baptized for forgive- 
ness of sins ; but infants, having no sins, were 
baptized only for the kingdom of heaven. This 
was to establish two sorts of baptism ; which was 
contrary to that article of the Constantinopolitan 
creed, then received in all the world : ' I acknowl- 
edge one baptism for the remission of sins.' " Vol. 
I., pp. 260-262. 



Chapter II. 

The foregoing citations of what are called au- 
thorities are deemed sufficient to show, to the en- 
tire satisfaction of the most interested and exact- 
ing critics, that all writers of note, of what party 
soever they may have been, orthodox or heterodox, 
held and asserted for the first four or five centu- 
ries, A. D. , that the baptism of the Christian Scrip- 
tures was, and thereifore now is, for remission of 
sins. During this period there was no dissent, no 
two opinions on our proposition. All who bap- 
tized at all, taught that baptism was for remission 
of sins. 

If it should be Gontended, as in truth it may, 
that many of the ancient leaders in religious thought 
held very extravagant and erroneous views as to 
the efficacy of Christian baptism, we do not object. 
It is freely admitted that their views on this subject 
were, in many cases, wrong, sometimes foolish and 
even absurd. But this fact is of no force as an ob- 
jection against our proposition ; for, if I should 
assert that one is a drinker of intoxicants, and one 
should reply, saying: he is a regular drunkard, a 

sot, his reply has no force, logically, to show that 

(257) 



258 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

my position is not true. The truth is, his propo- 
sition, proved, establishes mine also. This con- 
clusion is based on the principle that the greater 
includes the less; that a man who is seven feet 
high is certainly six feet high. That is, if baptism 
is held by any one to be for remission of sins and 
much morey he is bound to allow that it is for re- 
mission of sins, whatever else he may affirm. 

I intended, when I began the preparation of this 
work, to quote in this connection from many more 
of the ancient authorities than I have herein. I 
purposed, also, to quote freely from the deliver- 
ances of many of the, so called. Ecumenical Coun- 
cils, and from the ancient creeds or symbols of 
faith. I purposed, also, to gather into this work 
the opinions of the more distinguished persons and 
parties of mediaeval and modern times on this sub- 
ject. 

But I have decided that further citations, how- 
ever copious and pertinent they might be, would 
add no force to the testimonies already adduced. 
The case in hand is similar to one before Jesus 
once when he said : "If they hear not Moses and 
the prophets neither will they be persuaded though 
one rose from the dead." Therefore, I close my 
argument here. 



Chapter III. 

SOME STRANGE THINGS. 

Questions concerning our holy religion, both as 
it respects its faith and practice, have been dealt 
with, strangely^ by many persons, good and pious, 
during all the centuries since Jesus was here in the 
flesh. So obscuring to intellectual perception is 
sin, that there are but few persons, if any, who 
have, on all questions, an unbeclouded vision of 
truth, even when it is fully, fairly, and affection- 
ately presented. The same thing may, in truth, 
be said of us all when we are under the dominion 
of prejudice, though we may be unconscious of the 
fact. Therefore, we ought to be slow and 7'eluctant 
to fault those who differ from us, or from whom 
we differ, however plain it may be to us that we 
are in the right and that the other one is in the 
wrong. 

Notwithstanding these are facts, undeniable, it 
must be admitted, nevertheless, that we are per- 
mitted to believe firmly, and to assert with strong 
assurance of faith that certain things are or are 
not so. Though I have, in the preceding pages, 

at times, spoken confidently, and may be, dogmat- 

(259) 



26o baptism; its designs. 

ically, still, I have to the utmost tried to keep in 
mind, and heart, too, the thought that I am but 
dust in the sight of God ; that I may be in the 
wrong and the other one may be in the right. 

To be kindly affectioned towards his fellows is a 
source of much comfort to a soul. To take a 
hopeful happy view of the conduct of others is al- 
ways a blessing to the one who does it. To be 
merciful in spirit ; to rejoice, not in iniquity, but 
to rejoice in the truth ; to bear all things, believe 
all things, hope all things, endure all things, are 
grounds of great, infinite, Divine blessings. Yet 
there is another side. It is not an act of piety to 
close one's eyes to a patent fact or truth. Nor is 
it a proof of one's having a wicked, perverse heart 
that he marks iniquity or error in another, and in 
frank, fraternal terms, on proper occasions, ex- 
poses it. That many persons have gone wrong in 
matters religious, is not to be doubted. That it is 
the duty of those who think so to say so, is a mat- 
ter equally indisputable. That it is an iinpopulaf 
thing to raise the curtain so as to expose to view 
the deformities and ugliness of the sinner in the 
church, is so well understood that the fact, simply 
stated, is enough. Therefore, not many persons 
are able to do the work of an evangelist — to re- 
prove, rebuke, exhort, etc. Read chapter 23 of 
Jeremiah and learn how perverse God's people had 
become, at that time. Let it be noted that the 



i 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 26 1 

mass of the people was not so much blamed as 
were the prophets and priests. These erred much 
and grievously in that they did not ''speak my 
word faithfully, saith the Lord." This failure on 
the part of the prophets, to preach faithfully the 
word of the Lord, was the cause or the occasion of 
the people's going astray. Thus was the heavy 
hand of God laid upon the whole nation, but es- 
pecially upon the false prophets. It has always 
been this way, and thus it is now — false teachers 
make God's people go astray. 

Theoretic apostasy consists in departures in some 
sense or way, in theory, from God's word, and, 
therefore, from God. Practical apostasy consists 
in giving force and effect to a false theory by or- 
ganizing on it and working to carry it out to its 
logical results. The term Romanism does not 
sum up all the apostasy, apostasies, and apostates 
in the world. Wherever the poison of unbelief 
"in departing from the living God," is found in 
the Church, there is theoretic apostasy. This may 
remain incipient and theoretic long, and it may 
possibly do no great harm, depending upon the 
nature and gravity of the errors in the case. 

An error, no matter what it is, if it is held as a 
theory only, and while it is so held, giving rise to 
no practice or life, as it respects self or others, is 
perfectly harmless. 

Departures from God are, in large measure, due 



262 baptism; its designs. 

to the fact that those who read the living oracles 
do not approach the reading and study of the 
Book in the spirit and with the gravity and care- 
fulness that should characterize one who proposes 
to hold personal communion with God, while he 
reads and as he reads. Men and women may be 
found every-where who rack their brains and 
trouble their hearts much to ascertain where Cain 
got his wife. One who believes it to be wrong to 
pray, extempore, or that all right, acceptable pray- 
ers are read, is greatly troubled to know who held 
the candle for Jonah to read his prayers by while 
he was in the fish's belly. Again, one is greatly 
concerned to know what a *'time, times and a half 
time," mean. He is so distressed that he can not 
join the Church, since he is ignorant of the mean- 
ing of these strange words. Again, one is over- 
whelmed with embarrassment as he contemplates 
the mysterious number 666. Such an one is fre- 
quently not lazy nor stingy. He will labor long 
and hard and spend money freely in order to un- 
derstand the meaning of this strange number. The 
numerous precepts, commandments, promises, and 
threatenings of God, that are plain and on which 
is suspended the salvation of the soul, scarcely gain 
a nod of recognition from those honest, truth-loving 
souls. 

Again, there are passages about the white stone, 
the bright and morning star, the millennium, Gog 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 263 

and Magog, the four beasts seen by John in heaven, 
the white horse, the black horse, the seven trum- 
pets, the seven vials, the locusts, etc. Again, 
there is the man of sin, the son of perdition, the 
beast, and the false prophet, Babylon the great is 
fallen, is fallen. One enquires: What do these 
things mean? how perplexing they are, and who 
is "able for them?" Would it not be well if per- 
sons who are so troubled about the foregoing 
questions and their like would seek first the king- 
dom of God and His righteousness before giving 
any or much thought to these things which it might 
be pleasant and even profitable to a very small de- 
gree to understand, but a knowledge of which is 
by no means essential to salvation ? These are 
strange things. Concerning no other matters do 
men act so without reason and against reason as 
they do in regard to the religion of Jesus Christ. 
The class of persons who halt at and stumble 
over these, so called, troublesome obstructions, 
find no difficulty in believing stories, most absurd 
and ridiculous. I saw, in the "Apostolic Guide," 
of August 26, 1892, a quotation from "The Watch- 
man," which is quite to my taste: "One of the 
suprises which constantly meets the student of 
Church History is the ease with which men can 
accept the most unreasonable and fantastic doctrmes 
while rejecting the sober statements fortified by 
abundant evidence of the religion of the New Tes-' 



264 baptism; its designs. 

tament. The man who professes himself unable 
to accept the miracles of Christ will often be found 
to champion the most absurd accounts of spirit- 
rapping, mind cure, and theosophy. And fre- 
quently, one who professes to doubt the perfection 
of the character of our Lord will give the most 
implicit admiration to a fellow man or woman, 
whose personal life would not stand the test in an 
ordinary police court for ten minutes." 

This quotation presents matters much as we see 
things around us every day every-where. Such 
characters are not peculiar to nineteenth century 
people. As now, they were every-where to be 
found in the times of Jesus on earth, and in the 
lands he visited. One would know of Jesus where 
he lived. Another asked if it was right to give 
tribute to Caesar. Another was very anxious to 
know whose wife, in the resurrection, a certain 
woman should be who had been married seven 
times. Some would learn why Jesus ate and drank 
just as did the common people; others asked why 
he ate with publicans and sinners. One would 
know what he must do to inherit eternal life, and 
was ready to do what might be required of him, 
provided his personal liberty was not to be in- 
fringed, he being the judge in the case. Verily, 
then as now, and always men were ready, willing, 
anxious, to be Jesus' disciples if they should be 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 265 

allowed to come in as they pleased and to live as 
they chose to live afterwards. This is strange. 

Some of the fundamental conceptions of our holy 
religion are: i. Man is a sinner. 2. He can not 
save himself. 3. God, only, has power to forgive 
sins. 4. God, only, has the right to prescribe the 
conditions upon which He will forgive sins. 5. 
There are no means by which the sinner can know 
that he is forgiven except what God has said about 
it. 6. Therefore, one is or may be known to be 
forgiven if God says he is forgiven, but if God does 
not say so then we can not, ought not to, must 
not, say so. 

The theory that some are seeking to establish, 
that the sinner may know, on general principles, 
that he is pardoned, is hardly true. God has not 
left a matter of so grave importance to be inferred 
from general principles. Is one in the kingdom 
of God ? Then he has been born of water and Spirit ; 
or, he has believed and been baptized, for so the 
language signifies. Would one be saved ? Let 
him believe and be baptized and he shall be saved. 
Or, has one believed and been baptized ? he is saved," 
The one who has heard and has learned of the Fa- 
ther so that he is pricked to the heart and wishes to 
know what he must do to be saved (and no one 
else really wishes to know), is told to repent and 
be baptized. Thus plainly, definitely, does God 
speak on this point. There are no deductions of 



266 baptism; its designs. 

any sort to be made. After such talk from God, 
it is strange that one should wish to refine on state- 
ments made so plain in the word of God. Indeed, 
they are the words of God. Of course, the case 
is still more strange, of the one who, seeing these 
plain statements, should set them aside, should 
declare that the end that God offers may be gained, 
must be gained without the use of God's means 
appointed for that end. This is strange. 

A gaunt, lean theory, to the effect that if one 
only believes he is saved, has a large currency 
among large bodies of denominational Christians, 
though it has no countenance whatever in the word 
of God. Again, it is claimed that if only the heart 
has experienced a strange impulse (and the more 
strange the better), which the one having it thinks 
is from God, and by which he thinks God meant 
to say to him that his sins were pardoned, then 
such one may rest in security, though God has 
not anywhere made the slightest allusion to such 
truth or fact. Is this not strange? 

Does one say that to so insist on adhering, 
strictly, to what God says, and to so confidently 
rely upon the result following where one employs 
the God-appointed means, is, if not proof, at least 
suggestive of legalism ? Well, it certainly is pos- 
sible that one may become so infatuated with the 
idea of doing just what and all that God has re- 
quired of him, that regard for the outward perform- 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 26/ 

ance might trench u^on the inner graces of faith and 
love, so far that his rehgion might seem to be, too, 
merely mechanical. Suppose, that in fact, we have 
a case of this kind before us, what ought we to do 
with it? Would it be right to insist upon less out- 
ward performance because the heart work had been 
somewhat neglected? Certainly not. Wherein 
one is in the right he should be approved and en- 
couraged ; wherein and to the extent he is wrong 
he should if possible be set right. 

We have, in Matthew 23: 23, and Luke ii : 42, 
a lesson from Jesus' own lips on this point. He 
says: "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hyp- 
ocrites ! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, 
and have left undone the weightier matters of the 
law, judgment, and mercy, and faith, but these ye 
ought to have done and not to have left the other 
undone." 

I have read many sentences from the writings 
of some of the best men that, after all due allow- 
ances were made, seemed to say that the otitward 
performance is not very important, if, indeed, it 
may not, with impunity, be omitted. But Jesus 
was himself an obedient servant, obedient even 
unto death. He was so punctilious in keeping all 
the law of God — in fulfilHng all righteousness, that 
not one jot or tittle of the law of God was allowed 
to pass till all was fulfilled. Death, with him, was 
to be preferred before allowing even one, and that 



268 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

the least, of God's commandments to be disregarded 
or broken. 

It has, no doubt, been observed, with pain and 
mortification, that, as a rule, when questions, as 
to whether given passages of our accepted script- 
ures are from heaven or not, have arisen, the class 
of persons readiest and certainest to decide against 
the Divinity of the said passage, is made up of, 
mostly, young, or of comparatively ignorant per- 
sons. 

A reading that has stood the- test of the world's 
scholarship for a long period of time may, it is 
true, be not entitled to a place in the Holy Book ; 
still, it should not be rejected by the inexperienced 
or the incompetent unless a goodly number of very 
scholarly and pious persons have been forced, after 
long and careful consideration, to decide against 
it. In fact, it does not look well, and it is cer- 
tainly not well to see and to allow persons, noto- 
riously incompetent for such work, to cast out 
portions of what may be the word of God, on the 
slightest suspicion of their own, or on a mere hint 
from some one supposed to know or to be an author- 
ity in the case. Such persons make the impression 
on my mind that they are afraid to wait longer in 
making known to the world their opinions, lest they 
should not be thought to be, intellectually, in ad- 
vance of the rest of the people. This, though 
not one of the seven or eight wonders of the world, 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 269 

is certainly and may be rightly marked a strange 
thing. 

But of all the strange things talked of, written, 
or spoken of among religious people, I think, the 
strangest one is that a demand, even an earnest de- 
mand for a strict adherence to the word of God ; 
that insistence upon a faithful "walking in all the 
commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blame- 
less," should be looked upon by any soul that has 
tasted the good word of God and the powers of 
the world to come as evidence of "legalism, or of 
sacramentarianism. Possibly, I should beg pardon 
for saying that I believe that the soul that in sin- 
gleness of heart, that in deep love for Jesus, and 
that in faith and prayer yearns to know all that 
God would have it do, that strives with all its might 
to do all that God has called upon it to do, and 
that mourns in deepest sorrow when it finds that 
it has failed in respect to even one of the least of 
God's commandments, is very near to having at- 
tained to the best culture and the highest refine- 
ments pertaining to the kingdom of God. Legal- 
ism ! Let it not be named in such connection. 

And what sort of an ism is that which, like a 
hungry wolf on the scent of blood, is ever seeking 
a way to avoid rendering strict obedience to some 
of God's commandments and yet claiming to have 
the spirit of obedience ? Such ones try to show 
that the will of God may as certainly be done by 



270 baptism; its designs. 

one who does not do his commandments as by one 
who does, with all of the probable advantages in 
favor of him who does not obey, but who has the 
spirit of obedience ? 

With such persons the point of greatest danger is 
not generally reached until these cheap sentimental- 
ists reach the ordinance of baptism. This red rag in 
theology being reached, the worst possible symp- 
toms of legalphobia set in at once and the subjects 
of it are filled with fearfulness and trembling. So, 
in some cases, at least, matters seem to me. My 
own opinion is that he who obeys God in the mat- 
ter of doing all of his commandments, if possible, 
is as certainly spiritual as is the other, with a large 
preponderance of probability in his favor. Of 
course one may do the outward thing, and lack 
the spirit of obedience. In this we have the case 
of a hypocrite. His fault was not in doing what 
he did, but it was in his doing it as he did. But 
did it never occur to these super-spiritually minded 
brethren that we may as easily and as probably 
have a hypocrite among those who say they feel 
something as among those who do something, and 
that something a thing that God has expressly re- 
quired us to do? 

Hypocritical expressions as to one's feelings are 
surely as cheap and liable to occur as are hypo- 
critical doings. The better view is, to '*do His 
commandments," all of them, and be blessed; and 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 271 

this especially as God has said we must. The 
danger of our, thereby, not having or of our losing 
the Spirit of the Master is very small, indeed. 

Again, one is wrestling with questions concern- 
ing God, and he refuses to be comforted because 
he can not, fully, understand them. For exam- 
ple: God is said to be Omnipotent, Omniscient; 
is said to fill all space, so that he is every-where 
present as really and as fully as he is anywhere, 
at the same time. He does not fully understand 
these things, and he is not willing to accept the re- 
ligion of the Christ until he does. So he talks. 

Strange that such an one does not see that on 
his theory he should not eat, drink, walk, or talk. 
No one fully comprehends himself or any thing 
else. He is full of mystery to himself Much 
more must he fail, and expect to fail to fully un- 
derstand all about God. Job 11:7. Zophar says : 
"Canst thou, by searching, find out God? canst 
thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" 

The mysterious, the incomprehensible, confronts 
us at every step, every-where, always. Not a 
spear of grass in our pathway, not a flower in our 
garden, not an atom or insect that floats in the 
breeze, not one thing, from molecule or the tiny 
life that spins its gossamer web in our window, to 
leviathan that plows the mighty deep, that does 
not challenge us with questions that are too much 
for our limited, poor, intellectual powers. We 



272 baptism; its designs. 

understand everything about nothing. Should this 
fact embarrass us ? It should not, by any naeans. 
Nay, it is a most rational ground of real joy. It 
is a strong indication, if not a conclusive proof that 
there is a God and that he is every-where. 

What one fully understands is certainly not God, 
nor a work of God. If everything that one sees, 
or of which he knows any thing, were fully under- 
stood or comprehended, that fact would be proof 
reasonably satisfactory that no being above man 
was its author. Where the supernatural is not, 
there is lacking the evidence of God's being. The 
language of the supernatural is God. 

He that acknowledges the existence of the su- 
pernatural must in reason admit that God is; for 
so the admitted fact signifies. The boast of being 
ignorant furnishes no way of escape for the boaster. 
Agnosticism is not an ism ; it is nothing. But as 
it respects the existence of God, the things beneath 
us, above us, around us, and within us — all things 
— proclaim the hand that made us is Divine. That 
men will canvass the heavens and the earth; will 
spend and risk life and property to find, if possi- 
ble, some evidence that all the things of human 
contemplation, visible and invisible, were always, 
or that they are here by chance, will, rather than 
to say as they were made to do : " There is a God 
the whole creation cries," fall back on the absurd 
negation: **I do not know; I am an agnostic," is 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 273 

Strange. God did not make nor leave things in 
such shape that an intelHgent man with fair op- 
portunities could excuse himself on the plea of ig- 
norance. Having all necessary facilities for know- 
ing it is one's duty to know. He is not guiltless 
because he is ignorant ; for, he has no excuse for 
being ignorant. That persons will so act with re- 
gard to a matter of so great importance, is strange. 

A, somewhat, new view, and one not easy to 
satisfactorily discuss, is that baptism is in order to 
remission of sins ; but that one's sins, or at least 
a part of them, are remitted when one believes, 
and also when one repents, as well. What causes 
this view to be difficult to treat, profitably, is the 
fact that it is not, or it has not been distinctly out- 
lined by its advocates. Just precisely what the idea 
of the friends of this view is, seems to me not to 
be quite definitely stated. 

One who propounds a theory is expected to pre- 
sent his subject so plainly that a fairly good thinker 
would not be apt to misunderstand him. A liti- 
gant is required, in filing his complaint in court, 
to so present his case that the point or points 
thereof shall be clear. A failure to do this is good 
cause for putting one out of court. If one has a 
good case it is assumed by the court that he can 
make a plain, clear statement of it. Therefore, a 
failure to make such statement is taken as sufficient 
evidence that such an one has not a good case. 



274 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

If faith is in order to the immediate remission 
of sins, if repentance is for the immediate remission 
of sins, if confession or prayer is for the immedi- 
ate remission of sins, and if baptism is for remis- 
sion of the sins of an ahen sinner, it seems to fol- 
low that the sins of such an one are forgiven in 
parcels. That is, a part of one's sins is forgiven 
when he believes, another part when he repents, 
etc. Is this theory true? I believe it is not. 
There is nothing analagous to it in reason nor in 
revelation. It is, however, advocated by men of 
undoubted ability and piety ; so, though it appears 
absurd to me, yet the truth may be quite in its 
favor and I may be entirely in the wrong. It is 
certainly not said in the Bible, which is our only 
authority, that the alien sinner's sins are or ever 
were forgiven in parcels — here a little and there a 
little more — etc. If in this statement I am right 
then the theory itself is false. 

Does the Bible teach directly or by necessary 
implication that one's sins — an alien's sins — are 
remitted, a part now, again another, etc. ? I be- 
lieve it does not. But do not the scriptures say, 
or imply, that faith is for remission of the sins of 
an ahen ? and that repentance is for remission also ? 
I believe they do. In regard to faith read Luke 
8: 12, John 3: 15, 16, 18, 36. In regard to re- 
pentance read Acts 11 : 18, 20, 21; 2: 38; II. 
Cor. 7 : 10, et al. A careful study of these and 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 2/5 

Other like passages in their connections will make 
it clear that both faith and repentance are for re- 
mission of sins. 

If it were the intention of one to say, in Greek, 
that faith or repentance is for forgiveness of sins 
in the sense of its (either of them) being a step in 
that direction, or a move towards that end, with 
the implication that remission of sins is an end to 
be reached, he would employ the language found 
in the New Testament to express the idea that 
faith, etc., is for remission of sins. If this be true, 
and there is no doubt of it, then it does not follow 
that, where it is said that any thing is a condition 
of remission of sins, we have proof therein that 
one's sins are actually remitted at the time or mo- 
ment of his believing. 

When it is said that the blood of Jesus Christ 
was shed for many {eis aphesin hamartion) for re- 
mission of sins, the expression does not necessarily 
signify that the sins of the "many" were to be 
remitted as soon as the blood was shed. Nay, it 
does not signify that the "many" or any of them ^ 
for whom the blood was shed, will certainly at once 
or ever receive remission of sins. The passage 
means that the shedding of the blood of the new 
covenant was, and is, as to its purpose, for remis- 
sion of sins. Though the shedding of his blood 
was (eis aphesin hamartion) for remission of sins, 
or, in order to remission of sins of any given one, 



2/6 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

still just when such one's sins should be forgiven, 
and whether other conditions are or are not to be 
had, met, or complied with is not decided by this 
passage. 

Eis does not, necessarily^ bear the party who has 
the faith which is (eis) for salvation onto the point 
of remission, or into a state of the remission of 
sins. John 12: 42, says: Many believed on him 
{Gr. polloi episteusan eis auton). Here we have faith, 
which is in order to salvation or remission, fol- 
lowed by eiSy literally signifying intOy and yet the 
parties having the faith were not in him, they were 
not saved ; for, they would not confess him because 
they were afraid of being put out of the synagogue, 
"because they loved the glory of men more than 
the glory of God." The fact is eis in Greek should 
not necessarily or always^ be represented by into, 
in English, though that is its current sense in the 
New Testament. It should, probably, in a few 
places, be represented, in English, by such words 
as towarck, to, or in the direction of, etc. It is 
doubtful if eis is ever found with the idea of into 
or whither entirely absent from it. In a few cases 
it is probably impossible to discern the presence 
of the idea of motion i7ito a place, condition, or 
state. 

Mr. E. Robinson, in his Lexicon of the Greek 
New Testament, thinks that where the idea of irito 
seems to be wholly lost from the preposition eis, 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 277 

as in a few cases of its occurrences, it is neverthe- 
less expressed or implied in the connection. He 
says: "Sometimes eis c. accus. is found where the 
natural construction would seem to require en., c. 
dat. as after verbs which imply neither motion nor 
direction, but simply rest in a place or state. In 
such cases the idea of a previous coming into that 
place or state is either actually expressed, or is 
implied in the context." He then cites as author- 
ity for the position, Winer, Mathews, Buttman, etc. 

It is at least certain, beyond the reach of respect- 
able criticism, that where any certain thing, as faith, 
blood, repentance, baptism, or any other thing is 
said to be, eis auton — into him — or, eis aphesin — 
for or into remission — then that thing, whatever it 
may be, stands between the person or thing, not 
in the place or condition being considered, and 
being in said place or condition. To say other- 
wise would be to make the statement of the case 
contradict the real state of the case. That is, 
where it is said that faith, etc., is eis any thing, it 
is in effect said that faith is between the having such 
thing and the not having of it. 

The position, that an alien, when he has faith, 
and as soon as he has it, obtains remission of sins, 
and when he repents he again has a real experi- 
ence of the remission of sins, and when he is bap- 
tized he has another real experience of the remis- 
sion of sins, involves the conclusion that the for- 



278 baptism; its designs. 

giveness of the sins of an alien comes to him in 
parcels or installments. This conclusion is based 
on the false theory that where the Greek preposi- 
tion eis is followed by remission, and is preceded 
by faith, etc., then we must believe that the re- 
mission, or a part of it, comes immediately upon 
the possession of the faith, and, therefore, before 
and without any other condition. 

But the ground of this conclusion is not true. 
It often occurs, as to matters both temporal and 
spiritual, that one believes but goes no further, and 
hence he is not blessed. The step taken towards 
the blessing was essential to obtaining it, but if it 
is left by itself and while it is alone it is dead ; it 
is of no value. If it be said that, of course, a dead 
faith is valueless, but that a warm, vital, or living 
faith has an immediate blessing in itself, I would 
say in reply, yes, but no faith is warm, vital, or 
living, while it is alone or until it proceeds to do 
"his commandments," to the utmost of one's 
ability. 

There is, indeed, an immediate blessing for one 
having such faith as above mentioned, but it is not 
forgiveness of sins. It is the joy of a heart con- 
scious of an intelligent, fixed purpose, having 
started, to walk on in the way of the life of God to 
the end. One who has so started out in the Di- 
vine Life, does, by faith, almost see the glories, 
the unfolding beauties and the sweet blessedness 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 279 

of eternal life at his very first step. Let no one 
suppose that I am here contemplating such an 
abortion of faith as is often had in meetings where 
numbers count for more than souls saved, and 
where the mode of success is a sort of whoop-up, 
hurrah, whip-in proceeding. 

When I was a young man I was often absent 
from home and loved ones for years at a time. 
But, so soon as I resolved to visit them, and made 
the first step in that direction, my joys began. The 
joys were quite real, and very great, but they 
were joys born of anticipation, not of the actual 
possession of the grounds of said happiness. So it 
is when the lost sinner comes to believe that God 
is, and is a rewarder of them that seek after him ; 
when he comes to obtain, through faith, a look at 
the love of God, the sufferings of Jesus for him ; 
and when he comes to see the way open through 
the blood of the covenant to the joys of the end- 
less life; and when he hears the sweet persuasions 
of Jesus: "come unto me and I will give you 
rest," when the sinner comes to see and to be- 
lieve all this and determines to walk in all "his 
commandments," blameless, as far as he possibly 
can, he does not have to wait till he gets to 
Heaven in order to be happy. He is already 
happy. So I see things. 

According to some misconceptions of some very 
good but misguided people, the happiness above 



28o baptism; its designs. 

mentioned is religion quite enough for them ; they 
are pardoned they know, for they felt it. They 
know also that at the time when they had faith, 
only, they were forgiven. 

The true theory is that faith is (eis) for salvation 
because it is a necessary step lying between the 
unbelieving sinner and salvation. When one has 
believed he has made a move towards salvation; 
and the move towm'ds salvation had for its final 
objective point, "remission of sins," the being 
"/« him^'' or ** salvation." The same may be said 
of, or as to, repentance. When one is baptized 
the last move is made, the last step is taken that 
leads to the forgiveness of the alien sinner's sins. 
If this view is not precisely what the word of God 
provides for the case we consider, then it is, of 
course, wrong. 

What we have herein said in regard to the topic 
in hand is written wholly in deference to the worthy 
authors thereof, not because I feel constrained to 
admit that it possesses real merit. 

My purpose in these miscellaneous paragraphs, 
in the concluding pages of this work, is to specify 
and make prominent a few of the many strange 
ways in which people do act in regard to things 
religious and eternal. Of course, in the cases of 
those having such heads, hearts, and moods, it 
would be nearly impossible for them to see and to 
understand things spiritual, especially where the 



SOME STRANGE THINGS. 28 I 

spiritual matters condemn the lives of the pretended 
learners, as they generally do. 

In the cases of such persons, and their name is 
legion, the prophecy of Isaiah has fulfillment. 
Isaiah said: "By hearing ye shall hear and shall 
in nowise understand ; and seeing ye shall see and 
shall in no wise perceive. For this people's heart 
is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, 
and their eyes they have closed." 

The cause of this miserable state of the case, as it 
exists in our time, is not to be put to the discredit 
of the "rank and file" of church people so much 
as it is to that of the so-called ministry of the 
Church. 

One is often compelled to turn away from hear- 
ing him who, standing in the pulpit, claims to be 
God's messenger to show the people the way of 
life, feeling that, in view of the manner in which 
he deals with the people and with the truth, he 
cares but little for either. 

Again, see how in haste some of us report, or 
induce some one to report every Httle thing done 
which is supposed to be creditable to us. And 
if some one should succeed in doing a right clever 
thing see how editors and correspondents proceed 
at once to glut the market with their eulogies of 
"the stylish and gifted preacher." 

A specific remedy for this unlovely condition of 
things is not easy to find. I refer to this subject 



282 BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGNS. 

matter in general only to show how very difficult 
it is to make even a very plain point clear and ac- 
ceptable to the average man. 

The only remedy for this difficulty of seeing, 
hearing, feeling, etc., of which I am speaking is 
to, if possible, have those who are true, courage- 
ous and really spiritual to go forward and reprove, 
rebuke, and exhort to faithful performance of duty. 
Let the preacher who preaches himself and not 
the Lord Jesus Christ be told plainly, that except 
he repents he shall perish. Let the dose be well 
shaken when taken, and if a good result is not 
obtained, let the dose be repeated. If the pa- 
tient does not improve under this regime, get a 
bad case of cholera or yellow fever and lay it close 
by the patient and give him another dose of God's 
infallible medicine and his foolishness will, proba- 
bly, depart from him. 



(Sr 



